ShareThis

Saturday, 28 June 2014

Jews conspired to destroy the White South African government and murder the Boer / Afrikaaner people

In the 19th century the British fought wars to subject the Boer states to British Rule. In 1948, the Boers took power democratically, with the election of the National Party.

In the 1960s the government of Hendrik Verwoerd took power and implemented the formal separate but equal policies in South Africa. These policies made South Africa the economically strongest nation in Africa, and gave the blacks in South Africa (and the whites) the highest standards of living of any African nation.

Verwoerd's policies had two main opponents. One was a Jew named Harry Oppenheimer, the other a Jew named Anton Ruppert. Both controlled banking monopolies in the country, and wanted "rights" extended to black South Africans for the purpose of extending their money lending business. Oppenheimer had ties to the Rothschild banking family and to the US CIA, which throughout the 1970s through 1990s supported the overthrow of white South African rule, at the direction of the Jew Henry Kissinger.

Oppenheimer lobbied the Rothschilds to overthrow Verwoerd, who had publicly denounced the Jewish banking monopolies in Parliament. The Rothschilds secured the support of the Rockefeller, Carnegie and other "Anglo" families in the United States, and had those institutions lobby against the white government. Rockfeller influenced the Council on Foreign Relations and its members in the US government in particular to oppose white rule.

In 1963 a group of Jews founded the "African" National Congress. The ANC was founded by Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Dennis Goldberg, Arthur Goldreich, Hazel Goldreich and James Kantor, with a few African front men -- Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki (father of Thabo Mbeki), Raymond Mhlaba, and Ahmed Kathrada. In this, the ANC followed the model the Jews established when they founded the NAACP in the United States, with the exception that the ANC was a much more violent and openly communist organization. These Jews and their African National Congress received funding and support from both the Soviet Union and the US CIA.

In particular, Ruth First, the Jewish wife of Jewish Soviet KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, a leader of the South African Communist Party, was primarily responsible for funneling funds to this "African" National Congress.

In 1966 the CIA financed the assassination of President Verwoerd, through their "lone nut" operative Demetrio Tsafendas, a Greek immigrant to South Africa. In particular, Oppenheimer's South African Foundation funneled CIA money to Hendrik Van Den Bergh of the South African Security Police and John Vorster, the Minister of Justice, who were the men who recruited Tsafendas to assassinate Verwoerd.

By the 1970s the Jewish campaign to subvert South Africa was having no effect. The economy was unaffected by sanctions and communist unrest was minimal -- though much was made of it in the Jewish owned elements of the US press.

In 1978 the CIA recruited Pik Botha, the South African foreign minister, as a spy and used him to subvert the South African government, working with Samuel Huntington and Chester Crocker, Botha was assigned to undermine and alter the attitudes of the South African government regarding black rule.

Botha recruited Minister of Sports Piet Koornhof **and Head of Military Intelligence General Tienie Groenewald to the CIA-Jew operation. Groenewald in particular passed on the names of Afrikanner nationalist and white rights activists to MI6 and the CIA, and arranged for acts of violence and harassment, COINTELPRO style, against Boer activists in the country.

In the late 1970s and the early 1980s the banking families, Oppenheimer in particular, began to speculate in the Rand for the purpose of devaluing the currency. Inflation rose to 7 percent and growth fell to 3 percent, with inflation reaching 16 percent in the early 1980s.

In 1989 a Freemason with ties to B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Masonic fraternity which controls the ADL, was elected President of South Africa. Presient Frederik De Klerk was a Jewish-backed candidate with ties to the international Zionist establishment. De Klerk worked for, and eventually achieved, the Jewish goal of black rule in South Africa.

Today, South Africa's central bank is run by a Jew named Gill Marcus, with the black frontman named Tito Mboweni taking instructions. Trevor Manuel, a Jew, is the Minister of Finance. Alec Erwin, a Jew, is the Minister of Trade and Industry. Helena Dolny, the Jewish ex-wife of KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, runs the Land Bank. Ronnie Kasrils, a Jew, is the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. Louise Tager, a Jew, is chairman of the railway system, Spoornet. Michael Katz, a Jew,is the chief consultant on taxation. Meyer Kahn, a Jew, is the managing director of the police service. Three Jews -- Richard Goldstone, Arthur Chaskalson, and Albert Sachs -- sit on the South African Supreme Court

What has happened in South Africa under the name of "democracy" and "diversity" has been the Jewish takeover of their country. As with all Jewish governments, South Africa is now a failed nation. It is poor, it is crime ridden, and it is not safe to walk the streets.

The Jews wage war on anyone who opposes their total domination of the world's economy. They also work to make sure they control the governments of every single developed country in the world. Jews use whatever tools they can -- phony allegations of "racism" or pleas for "democracy", for instance -- to win stupid, thoughtless non-Jews to their cause, but all celebrated communist, socialist, "democratic" and/or anti-racist groups in the world are Jewish run and Jewish financed.


* * * * * * *
One might say that the bankers use the jews to advance their own agenda, but saddly jews themselves (or the majority of them) pretty much allow this to happen.  Either way, this is good information.

Friday, 27 June 2014

Jewish Lies & Hypocrisy - Gary Oldman



Hollywood actor Gary Oldman has apologised after saying Hollywood is a "town run by Jews" in an interview he gave to Playboy. He even went so far as to say that the Jews are "the chosen people".

In a statement addressing the “gentlemen” of the organisation, which was printed in Deadline he wrote: “I am deeply remorseful that comments I recently made in the Playboy Interview were offensive to many Jewish people.

“Upon reading my comments in print - I see how insensitive they may be, and how they may indeed contribute to the furtherance of a false stereotype.

“Anything that contributes to this stereotype is unacceptable, including my own words on the matter.”

The Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes actor also tried to distance himself from his statements in the forthcoming edition of the magazine, insisting he is a huge admirer of the contribution Jewish people have made to showbusiness.

He said: “If, during the interview, I had been asked to elaborate on this point I would have pointed out that I had just finished reading Neal Gabler’s superb book about the Jews and Hollywood, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews invented Hollywood.

“The fact is that our business, and my own career specifically, owes an enormous debt to that contribution.

“I hope you will know that this apology is heartfelt, genuine, and that I have an enormous personal affinity for the Jewish people in general, and those specifically in my life.”

He concluded by asking for forgiveness, going as far as to say he is unworthy of using a Hebrew greeting meaning “peace be upon you.”

Oldman, 56, said: ''The Jewish People, persecuted thorough the ages, are the first to hear God’s voice, and surely are the chosen people.

“I would like to sign off with “Shalom Aleichem”—but under the circumstances, perhaps today I lose the right to use that phrase, so I will wish you all peace.”


****



What a sell out, he tells the truth about Jews controlling Hollywood that Jews themselves readily admit, then issues a pathetic 'apology' because the ADL accused him of 'anti-semitism'. The 'apology' has been described by the ADL as 'insufficient'.

Oldman also initially defended Mel Gibson saying:

“Mel Gibson is in a town that’s run by Jews and he said the wrong thing because he’s actually bitten the hand that I guess has fed him - and doesn’t need to feed him anymore because he’s got enough dough.

“He’s like an outcast, a leper, you know?

''But some Jewish guy in his office somewhere hasn’t turned and said, “That f***ing kraut” or “F*** those Germans,” whatever it is? We all hide and try to be so politically correct. That's what gets me."

Gibson has been ostracised after producing the film 'Passion of the Christ' which Jews said portrayed them in a 'negative light'.





Abraham Foxman of the Jewish Supremacist Anti-Defamation League said:

“He should know better than to repeat and give credence to tired anti-Semitic tropes.

“Mel Gibson’s ostracisation in Hollywood was not a matter of being "politically incorrect," as Mr. Oldman suggests, but of paying the consequences for outing himself as a bigot and a hater.

“It is disturbing that Mr. Oldman appears to have bought into Mr. Gibson’s warped and prejudiced world view.”


The ADL is a Jewish Supremacist organisation that continually uses intimidation and control of media to attack individuals who dare to speak out about the Jewish agenda at play in America and the West. They use the accusations of 'anti-semitism' and 'conspiracy theorists' to cloud the reality of Jewish goals being pushed through Hollywood, media, the porn industry and politics.

For the origins of the ADL please read the following:
http://www.metapedia.org/wiki/ADL_of_B'nai_B'rith

You don’t have to believe me, they say it themselves when they are speaking or writing for a Jewish audience. If a Jew says that 'Jews Run Hollywood' as Joel Stein said in a 2008 article in the LA Times, then that is fine, but if a Gentile says it, then that isn't acceptable and everything must be done to destroy their character and inform the world of how 'anti-semitic' they are.

Lets take a look at some Jewish admissions of their agenda.




Who Runs Hollywood? C'mon

by Joel Stein.

Jewish Admission #1

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

This article is as clear as it could ever be about Jewish control of Hollywood, if these words were that of a Gentile, then could you imagine the outrage. The most revealing words in the article are:

'I don't care if Americans think we're (Jews) running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.'




'Dirty Jews' and the Christian Right

by Josh Lambert

Jewish Admission #2

Writing in an article in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, Professor Josh Lambert, academic director of the Yiddish Book Center and visiting assistant professor of English at the University of Massachusetts,  said that “American Jews have found the explicit representation of sex, and four-letter words, so very useful. The answers vary: Some Jews use obscenity to fight anti-Semitism, while others use it to rewrite traditional Jewish stories in a contemporary idiom.”

In the article, titled “’Dirty Jews’ and the Christian right”, the Jewish professor goes on to say that;
“Brilliant actors like Larry David and Sarah Silverman are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.


See the full article here:
www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.572391


“assert their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity”

This is true also of Hollywood is it not. Do not Hollywood movies portray sex, extreme violence and drugs? Not to mention the movies created that serve another Jewish agenda in their creative history portrayal of WW2 in countless films about Jews and the 'Holocaust' compared to absolutely no films about the atrocities of Communism carried out by their fellow tribesmen.

The Jews are asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity to undermine and weaken the traditional Western family values they despise so much due to the fact that the family, has been the foundation on which Western civilisation has been built. To destroy the West in order to control it, means destroying the family. This is a key tenet of Cultural Marxism and its bloody predecessor Communism which openly stated their desire to deconstruct the traditional family.






MTV

The music industry promotes miscegenation, it promotes violence and sexualises our youth from the earliest age possible. Its no accident, the music industry like the media, and film is a major way in which to get inside the heads of our people and mould them into the image that the culture destroyers want.

Each new generation is their target, if they can get inside the minds of children and mould them, and have apathetic parents who dont see what is going on, then they further achieve their long term goal which is to totally morally corrupt and destroy our culture and people.

Lets take a quick look at MTV:

Who owns MTV? Sumner Murray Redstone (born Sumner Murray Rothstein; May 27, 1923) he is a Jewish media magnate. He is the majority owner and Chairman of the Board of the National Amusements theater chain. Through National Amusements, Sumner Redstone and his family are majority owners of CBS Corporation, Viacom, MTV Networks, BET, and the film studio Paramount Pictures he estimated to be worth over $4 billion. So many Jews changing their names, maybe they are encouraged to do so as the Jewish Encyclopedia tells them, and lets be honest, he is one of many who do this to conceal their identity.
Look at MTV as a whole, it is full of this kind of material. It pushes the miscegenation agenda aimed at young white girls. It shows black 'rap' music that is full of anti-white hate. Killing whites, sex and violence are the hallmarks of MTV and it is poisoning your childrens minds and implanting images and behaviours in their heads that are aimed at corrupting them and turning them into self destructive pawns in the overall game.









Jewish control of the Porn Industry - Porn Used as a Weapon Against Gentiles.

Jewish Admission #3

Let us start off with some quotes, the first from Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw magazine.

"The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged."

Nathan Abrams Quote:

"Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. "

Nathan Abram Quote:

"A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews. Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography.

Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx. In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously."

Source:
http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38


Notice that all those mentioned, Reich, Marcuse, Goodman, Marx, Trotsky, Lenin and Freud are Jews. From Freud to Goodman, all represent a Jewish revolution against traditional European values and morality achieved through moral subversion and the encouragement of cultural and racial nihilism.

A good article on the Jewish agenda behind the porn industry:
http://www.europeanknightsproject.org/#!jewish-professor-porn-is-jewish-weapon/c1bgk






Jews DO control the Media

by MANNY FRIEDMAN

Jewish Admission #4

We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which  was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.


But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?

Read more if this amazing admission here:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/




As you can see, Jews themselves admit to the agenda that they call an 'anti-semitic conspiracy theory' when Gentiles speak of it.

Abraham Foxman said that the assertions made by Oldman are 'an anti-Semitic stereotype based on the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,"

No, they are facts based on reality and what Jews say themselves. How stupid does somebody have to be to disbelieve what is right in front of their eyes. As for the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion', it matters not who wrote them, but the content and reality of the world in which we live. If the protocols were a 'forgery' or a work of so called fiction, then whoever wrote them made an observation of amazing awareness and forethought. Whether they were written by Jews or not is completely irrelevant to the evidence of their being put into practice in the 20th and 21st century.

Or as Henry Ford put it:

"The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW."

This is how Jewish hegemony over the media and social life works, they have the power to cry 'anti-semitism' when anyone dares repeat what Jews have said. They have the power to break peoples careers for saying the 'wrong thing' about Jewish control of Hollywood, the media and banking. By doing this they silence people who are popular with the masses and keep them out of the public consciousness, it is Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy at work designed to keep any criticism of the Jews based on facts, suppressed under the deceptive term 'anti-semitism'. Without control of media, entertainment and politics, the Jewish agenda would be common knowledge amongst the people as it has been in the past, because they would not have the power to determine what is said and what isn't, what is called 'anti-semitic' and what is called cold hard reality. They work collectively to deceive the masses and make the path of truth impenetrable, only when the path is repaired can truth walk freely again.

The extent of Jewish power is self-evident when actors such as Gary Oldman and Mel Gibson can be forced through Jewish pressure to issue an apology in regards to statements they know to be true. Rather than issuing grovelling pathetic apologies, they should have stuck to their guns and in the process would have received much more support, and drawn attention to the true power structure that controls the West.















Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Tomorrow We Live - British Foreign Policy - The International of Finance and Socialism.






British foreign policy should hold two objectives: (1) the maintenance of British interest; (2) the maintenance of world peace. These two objectives do not conflict but coincide. British Unions deep quarrel with the virtually unanimous policy of the old parties is that it has sacrificed both the interests of Britain and of world peace to a political vendetta. Particularly we denounce the pursuit of that feud to the risk of British lives and world catastrophe because it is dictated by subservience to the vile international interests which command the old parties.

In this sphere international finance and international Socialism march openly hand in hand. They are by nature complementary forces of disaster, for the policy of international Socialism creates the flux and chaos by which finance lives and the producer perishes. Still more, in foreign policy their community of aim and of method should be clear to all, together with the reason of their unholy union. Certain countries have at once extirpated the control of international finance and the hopes of international socialism. No reason exists in British interest to quarrel with these countries and every reason of world peace forbids the quarrel. Yet the feud of international finance and its twin, international socialism, thrusts the manhood of Britain toward mortal quarrel with these nations.

Germany and Italy, despite a present poverty of natural resources have, at least, broken the control of international finance, and Germany in particular has offended this world power by summary dealing with the Jewish masters of usury. So every force of the money power throughout the world has been mobilised to crush them, and that power does not stop short at payment for its vendetta in British blood. Any study of the Press and propaganda organs controlled by finance power can reach no other conclusion if we ask the simple question, what single interest of Britain or of world peace is served by their clearly deliberate intention to provoke war between Britain and the new countries?

The motive of international Socialists is equally clear in their new clamour for war at any price. International Socialism has always taught the people that any form of national action in independence of world conditions was futile, and that the success of Socialism in Britain depended on the universal adoption of their doctrines throughout the world. Now great countries arise which have uprooted in theory and practice the obsolete doctrines of international Socialism, and consequently bar to the British Labour Party all hope of the universal acceptance of their creed, on which they admit alone the success of their cause can depend. So but one hope of the ultimate triumph of their party remains to the leaders of Labour, and that is the ooverthrow of these new systems by the force of world war. Lightly the Labour leaders appear to be prepared to purchase their political objective in British blood, and to pursue their political vendetta at the price of every interest of Britain and of world peace.

The party which has been built on cant of pacifism today leads the clamour for war, and the party which ever refused Britain arms to defend herself now supports rearmament, not for thr defence of Britain, but for the defence by war of international Socialism. Foremost in the van of the new jingoes is the Socialist conscientious objector of 1914. So is presented an edifying spectacle which naturally makes but scant appeal to the ex-servicemen of the last war. He replies with British Union that we have fought Germany once in a British quarrel and we shall not fight her again either in a Socialist or in a Jewish quarrel.

Perversion of the League

In result every high aspiration of the war generation has been frustrated and perverted. The League of Nations, which was the repository of many fine ideals, like the Holy Alliance of the previous century, has been perverted to perform exactly the opposite purpose to that which it was intended to fulfill. The League was meant to overcome the division of Europe, and to eliminate for ever the fatal system of the balance of power, which divided mankind into opposing and contending camps of highly armed and hostile nations. It has been perverted to be a new and more vicious instrument of that system by which Britain, France and Russia, in the name of the League, can mobilise their remaining satellite powers in one balance of a scale, whose other balance, by force of a common original adversity, now holds the armed power of Germany, Italy and Japan.

Despite every aspiration of the war generation and every hope of stricken mankind we are back where we began in a situation which for Britain is more dangerous than before. For the departure by present Government, in their political vendetta, from the sober British policy of pursuing the coincident objectives of peace and British interests has resulted in follies of which British statesman ship has never previously been guilty. Never before in modern times have we placed ourselves in a strategical position so vulnerable that any child could observe it and also apprehend the consequence. We face Germany across the North Sea and Japan in the far seas of our Eastern possessions, while in the Mediterranean route to our Oriental Empire we have succeeded in antagonising at one end the new Spain, and at the other end the Arabs, with an alienated Italy in the middle. With Germany and the Arabs we have quarreled for the sake of Jews, and with Italy and the new Spain for the sake of international Socialism in an alliance with Russian *(Jewish) Communism. Has British statesmanship ever before perpetrated folly on a scale so gigantic, in denial so complete of British interest, security and peace?

Tuesday, 24 June 2014

Katyn - Another covered up communist slaughter




The Katyn Massacre, also known as the Katyn Forest Massacre (Polish: zbrodnia katyńska, 'Katyń crime'), was a mass murder of thousands Polish military officers, policemen, intellectuals and civilian prisoners of war by Soviet NKVD, based on a proposal from Lavrentiy Beria to execute all members the Polish Officer Corps dated March 5, 1940. This official document was then approved (signed) by the entire Soviet Politburo including Stalin and Beria. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, with the most commonly cited number of 21,768.


In 1943 German troops exhumated about 4100 corpses and put together a European commission consisting of twelve forensic experts and their staffs from Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Croatia, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, and Hungary. The committe checked the age of the corpses and the way that they were killed, and both proved, that the killings were done by the Soviets.


False accusations:

After the Soviets re-occupied the area, they did their best to show, that the killings were done by Germans. They also tried in Nuremberg to accuse the Germans, but even there, this was not successful.


After the war:

In Poland, the pro-Soviet authorities covered up the matter in accordance with the official Soviet propaganda line, deliberately censoring any sources that might provide information about the crime. Katyn was a forbidden topic in postwar Poland. Censorship in the People's Republic of Poland was a massive undertaking and Katyn was specifically mentioned in the "Black Book of Censorship" used by the authorities to control the media and academia. Not only did government censorship suppress all references to it, but even mentioning the atrocity was dangerous. In the late 1970s, democracy groups like the Workers' Defence Committee and the Flying University defied the censorship and discussed the massacre, in the face of beatings, arrests, detentions, and ostracism.

In 1981, Polish trade union Solidarity erected a memorial with the simple inscription "Katyn, 1940". It was confiscated by the police and replaced with an official monument with the inscription: "To the Polish soldiers—victims of Hitlerite fascism—reposing in the soil of Katyn". Nevertheless, every year on All Souls Day, similar memorial crosses were erected at Powązki cemetery and numerous other places in Poland, only to be dismantled by the police. Katyn remained a political taboo in communist Poland until the fall of communism in 1989.

- Metapedia


The Katyn Wood Massacre:

The first news of a massacre at Katyn Wood came in April 1943 when the Germans found a mass grave of 4,500 Polish soldiers in German-occupied Russia. The discovery at Katyn Wood was to greatly embarrass the Communist  government.


The Communists responded to the German claims that Russia's secret police did it, by claiming that the massacre was carried out by the Germans themselves. In the context of the war - the Allies were fighting the German war machine and Russia was a 'valued ally' the German version was not accepted by the British or other Allied governments. However, in the era of the Cold War, the Russian version was heavily scrutinised and questionned.

The first announcement of what had been found at Katyn Wood was made on Radio Berlin on April 13th, 1943.

"A report has reached us from Smolensk to the effect that the local inhabitants have mentioned to the German authorities the existence of a place where mass executions have been carried out by the Bolsheviks and where 10,000 Polish officers have been murdered by the Soviet Secret State Police. The German authorities went to a place called the Hill of Goats, a Russian health resort situated twelve kilometers west of Smolensk, where a gruesome discovery was made."
Radio Berlin broadcast.

The Germans found a ditch 28 meters long and 16 meters wide at the Hill of Goats in which were 3,000 bodies piled up in layers of twelve. All the bodies were fully dressed in military uniform; some were bound and all had pistol shots to the back of their heads. The Germans believed that they would find 10,000 bodies (hence the figure in the broadcast) but eventually the final total was 4,500. The Germans claimed that the bodies were in good condition and they even recognised a general Smorawinsky as one of the victims. The soil had done a great deal to preserve the bodies and any documentation found on them.

However, any information relating to this massacre made public during the war came from Goebbel's propaganda ministry and was treated as suspect by the Allies. In January 1943, the Communists had turned the tide of the war with the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad - a victory Churchill had urged all on the Allied side to celebrate. As if in a knee-jerk reaction, any criticism about the communists in Easter 1943 would not have been acceptable. Any connection between the massacre and the Germans, however, would have been more readily accepted by all those fighting against the Germans.

But what exactly did happen at Katyn Wood?

When German forces attacked Poland in September 1939 (due to the slaughter of ethnic Germans in Danzig a German territory), the Blitzkrieg tactic tore great holes in the Polish defence. However, on September 17th, as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Russian forces also invaded Poland (there was no declaration of war against communist Russia by Britain or France). The communist leadership called on the Polish soldiers to rise up against their officers and political leaders as a punishment for getting the country into an unjust war. Those Polish officers and senior NCO's captured by the Red Army were arrested and deported to Russia.

It is known that they were taken to three camps in Russia - Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov. One of the camps, Kozelsk, contained more than just officers. It contained arrested Polish university lecturers, surgeons, physicians, barristers and lawyers. One woman prisoner was held at Kozelsk - Janina Lewandowski. Her body was found at Katyn clothed in the uniform of the Polish Air Force. Ostashkov held officers - but it also held anybody from Poland who was considered to be 'bourgeois'. It seems that only Starobelsk held only officers from the Polish military.

To start with, the communists attempted to 're-educate' the Poles in all three camps. Brigadier Zarubin of the Soviet Secret State Police was put in charge of this task. His efforts to promote the Soviet way of life probably had no chance. The Poles in the camp were forbidden to say Mass - which for a devout Roman Catholic nation was a major blow and it was almost certainly done secretly. Therefore, it is untenable to think that there were any takers for the Soviet view point which Zarubin was trying to sell. It seems that Zarubin reported his failure to Moscow and shortly after this a colonel from the Soviet Secret State Police turned up at all three camps. Just after the visit of this colonel, groups of prisoners were taken from the camps to an unknown destination.

In April 1940, all three camps were simultaneously cleared.

On June 22nd, 1941, Germany launched 'Operation Barbarossa'. The German military swept aside the Russian army and penetrated deep into Russia. Stalin, alarmed by the collapse of the Red Army, ordered that an amnesty should be granted to all Polish prisoners who were willing to fight against the Germans. On August 14th 1941, a Polish-Soviet military agreement was signed. However, no-one could account for the whereabouts of the officers held in Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov. Winston Churchill himself wrote about the embarrassment such a disclosure brought on the Russian authorities.

The Polish government in exile, based in London, was especially concerned that the Russians explain where these men were. Stalin gave two answers. Initially, he claimed that the men had escaped to Manchuria. However, the authorities in Moscow - which was effectively Stalin - claimed that the men were held in territory that the Germans had taken in their lightning attack in June 1941 and that only the Germans could account for their whereabouts. This was to become the standard Moscow answer to the problem - the Germans were responsible.

Locals at Katyn Forest had long known that it was an area used by the secret police to execute those who had fallen out with Stalin's government. As early as 1929, the Soviet secret police had built a dacha there surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. To keep out the locals, the secret police also used guard dogs to patrol the perimeter of the dacha.

On July 16th, 1941, Smolensk fell to the Germans. The Russian authorities had fled from Katyn and for the first time in years, the area was open 'to the public'. In 1942, Poles from the Todt Organisation arrived in the area to collect any form of scrap. As they worked on the Hill of Goats, they found the body of a dead Polish officer who was later buried in a dignified service. However, the winter for 1942-43 was severe and the ground at the Hill of Goats was frozen over.  

In the Spring of 1943, a Russian peasant, Ivan Krivozertzev, read an article in a newspaper ('Novyj Put') regarding General Sikorski and his search for thousands of Polish officers whom he could not account for. Despite communism in Russia, Krivozertzev had maintained his religious beliefs and re-called what he had seen in Smolensk in 1940.

He had seen rail wagons coming into Smolensk station but being shunted into screened sidings. He had seen men being herded under armed guard into 'Black Ravens' - the local nickname for prison vehicles. Krivozertzev had also seen 'normal' prisoners being driven from Smolensk city in lorries with shovels and pick axes. Krivozertzev went to the Germans and told them that he believed the Polish officers would be found at the Hill of Goats. The Germans went to the forest and dug up mounds that had young fir trees on the top of them. These trees gave away an obvious secret as the rings on them indicated that they had been planted in April 1940.

The Germans started digging in the Hill of Goats and found the bodies of many men, still in military uniform, who had been shot in the back of the head with their hands tied behind their backs. The Germans also found the bodies of Russian men and women who had been shot long before 1940. Curiously, the Germans claimed that the way the Russians and Poles had been tied was identical and that whoever did both sets of murders was the same organisation. The 4,500 bodies that were exhumed came from Kozelsk - no-one knows what happened to the men held at Starobelsk and Ostashkov. Moscow announced its stance on April 14th 1943:

"The Polish prisoners in question were interned in the vicinity of Smolensk in special camps and were employed in road construction. In was impossible to evacuate them at the time of the approach of the German troops and, as a result, they fell into their hands. If, therefore, they have been found murdered, it means that they have been murdered by the Germans who, for reasons of provocation, now claim that the crime was committed by Soviet authorities."

On April 15th, the British government publically stated via the BBC that the Germans had told lies and that it accepted the Communists version. This caused the Polish government in exile to call for an independent inspection of Katyn - something the International Red Cross in Switzerland could do. The German and Polish government (in exile) agreed to this; Moscow did not. The Russians broke off all relations with Poland and set up a puppet Polish government in Moscow.

When Russia advanced into Europe and re-captured Katyn, it seemed as if the issue was solved as it was clear that the Russians were not going to allow any investigation into what happened at Katyn. At the Nuremburg trials, the murders were linked to the indictment against Goering and the Russians presented their evidence to 'prove' it was the Germans, but they were never probed and Katyn drifted into obscurity. At the final judgment of the International Tribunal, Katyn was not even mentioned.

For their part the communists claimed that the massacre took place after it became obvious that the Wehrmacht was in full retreat after their defeat at Stalingrad and that it was carried out by the Germans. They put up the following evidence gathered at Nuremburg:

 The Germans did not allow any external authority to fully examine either the bodies or the grave sites. The Polish Commission, set up by the Nazis to examine the evidence, was only allowed to see what the Germans wanted them to see. One Bulgarian professor, Marko Markov, claimed that he was only allowed to dissect one body that was presented to him and that he could not conclude from this body that it had been in the ground for three years – as the Nazis tried to suggest to him that it had been. In his written report, Markov only wrote about what he found on the body – he did not give a conclusion as to how the body got into its state.

He and seven other experts were only allowed two half-a-day visits to the grave sites by the Germans. “It reminded me of a tourist trip”, claimed Markov.

The Russians also claimed that the issue of the three year old saplings was also easy to explain. They claimed that there was no evidence that they came from the grave mounds themselves and that they could have been gathered at any point from Katyn Wood and handed in as ‘evidence’.

The communists also claimed that all the bullets found on the bodies were made by the German firm Geko. It was claimed that they were all Geko 7.65 mm bullets which only the German would have had access to.

Who committed the murders remained a mystery until 1990 when the Russian authorities admitted that it was the Russian Secret police (NKVD), that then spent much time and effort in attaching blame on the Germans.

...

Cultural Marxism and the (Very Real) Movement to Normalize Pedophilia


“Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism.”

– Olaf Stüben, German pedophile activist, 1981

Anyone who has followed the arguments surrounding the case of Florida sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt knows how her supporters in the so-called “Free Kate” movement have justified Hunt’s crimes against a 14-year-old girl. You are a bigoted hater, say the Free Kate crowd, if you think the parents of a 14-year-old have a right to prevent their daughter’s corruption by a tattoo-covered dildo-wielding she-hooligan.

“But it was consensual! They were in love!
It’s normal! It’s harmless! Everybody does it!”

Every parent — no, every decent human being — who heard those rationalizations must have strained to resist the urge to grab a shotgun and hunt down the twisted freaks who make such excuses.

Why do you think they call it “jailbait”?

It’s very simple: Age-of-consent laws empower parents to protect their own children, and the fact that some parents don’t give a damn whether their kids are screwing around (hello, Kelley Hunt Smith) cannot be used to argue for a “right” to have sex with minors.

Must the citizens of Indian River County  let a pack of wretched white trash like the Hunt family set the moral standards of their community? Is Florida soon to be infamous as the Teen Sex State, where every child becomes “fair game” as soon as they start high school?

Happy 14th Birthday! (Batteries not included.)

Disagree with these sex-crazed perverts and you will be accused of “vengeance, spite, fear, denial, sadness, insanity, whatever.”

These bizarre accusations should not only offend us because they are false, but intelligent citizens should be alarmed at the cultural shift that makes these creeps unashamed to defend perversion by such twisted logic, presuming to lecture decent law-abiding people this way.

However, nothing should outrage and offend you more than the knowledge that there has been (and still is) a relentless political movement to normalize sex with minors, a fact that left-wing activists in Germany are just now being forced to admit:

[I]n the 1970s and 80s, numerous gay-oriented magazines brazenly promoted sex with children, even running pictures of naked boys. The magazine “Don” presented five sympathetic reports on the experiences of pedophilic men. The headline read, “We’re not child rapists!”

In recent months, many in Germany have been discussing the extent to which the Green Party in the 1980s allowed itself to be manipulated by pedophiles. The party came under such intense pressure that it hired political scientist Franz Walter to look into its own history relating to the issue.

Yet it’s now clear that the gay movement in Germany must also come to terms with this chapter of its history. Anyone who searches through archives can find ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists. If pedophiles got into trouble with the law, they could rely on legal advice from a group called “Gay Lawyers.” Many politicians in the Green Party also made sure that calls for legalizing sex with children had an audience.

Many gays didn’t want to be the ones to judge others for their deviant sexual inclinations. In a climate of general tolerance, the movement lost its moral compass. The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing.

Then there was the remarkable idea that underage boys should not be denied the chance to have sexual experiences with grown men. Even today, the Association of Lesbians and Gays in Germany (LSVD) claims on its website that in the 1980s, the only men who spoke up were those who had enjoyed sex with adults in their youth.

For the pedophiles, the alliance with the gay movement was nothing but beneficial. They had a platform from which they could formulate objectives.

The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways. In the pamphlet “Justly gay. Legal advice for gays,” there is a one-and-a-half page “argumentation aid.” It’s an instruction on how men who are charged with child sexual abuse can best escape punishment.

To emphasize, in case you missed the key passages:

“The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing. The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways.”

You can read the whole thing, which reveals a sordid history that the gay rights movement — and the Left, in general, both in Europe and America — have attempted to suppress by angrily denouncing as “bigots” and “witch hunters” anyone who dares to mention it.

It is not bigotry, it is not hysteria or witch-hunting or homophobia, to state the plain facts, nor should we be afraid to point out that there are still many people — including university professors and authors published by prestigious journals – who are attempting to undermine resistance to their agenda of having sex with minors.

Furthermore, we need not be silent about which side of the political spectrum tolerates and defends these intellectual perverts, chiefly by their silence about the existence of the academic pedophile movement, but also by stigmatizing those who warn against it.

In January, when Rush Limbaugh described the “movement to normalize pedophilia,” he was mocked by liberals for saying so, but we are now being overwhelmed with a tsunami of new evidence of the shameless persistence of this shameful deviant movement:

A childhood education conference to take place next weekend at the University of Toronto will feature keynote speaker Dr. James Kincaid, a Professor of English at the University of Southern California who has been criticized as being highly sympathetic to pedophiles.

The conference titled “Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life” is sponsored by the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies under the auspices of the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

Kincaid is an American academic whose studies into the sexualization of children have led him to the conclusion that all adults are secretly sexually attracted to children but use revulsion at the actions of overt pedophiles to hide their inner feelings.

He believes society condemns pedophilia in order to maintain its moral posturing, while living through child molesters vicariously.
“So, what about the way we talk about child-loving? The talk is monster-talk, first of all, talk that is busy rejecting the pedophile,” Kincaid wrote.

Dr. Charles McVety of the Institute for Canadian Values has written an open letter to Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, asking that Kincaid be denied entry into the country.

“On behalf of the 125,000 members of the Institute for Canadian Values and Canada Family Action, we request that the Minister refuse admission of Dr. James Kincaid to Canada for a lecture on October 19th, 2013 in Toronto,” Dr. McVety wrote.

“Dr. Kincaid is a well-known advocate for pedophilia, a criminal activity in Canada,” the letter states. “His work has been roundly condemned by the New York Times, The Daily Mail, several British Members of Parliament, and Michael Hames of Scotland Yard.”

It’s another read-the-whole-incredible-thing article. We shake our heads in disbelief that someone like James Kincaid even exists, much less that this unapologetic academic advocate for perversity should be employed by the University of Southern California:

Professor Kincaid researches critical theory, American Studies and Queer studies. Before coming to USC in 1987, he taught at Ohio State, Berkeley, and Colorado. Kincaid’s earlier work in Victorian literature and culture and in literary theory has yielded to publication in cultural studies, most recently in the history and current cultural practices of eroticizing children and instituting elaborate scapegoating rituals to disguise what we are doing. He regularly teaches classes in criminality/lunacy/perversion, in age studies, in censorship, and in other areas of literary, political, and cultural studies.

Oh, “critical theory,” also known as cultural Marxism. But if you call it by its right name, you’ll be called a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorist. And in this world turned upside down, where facts are “hate” and truth is “extremist,” how much further down the the slippery slope will we slide before it’s illegal even to criticize it?

We’ve already slouched past Gomorrah and are halfway to Sodom. We are so close to the gates of Hell you can feel the heat, smell the sulfurous stench of burning brimstone, and hear the Devil call your name.

Satan roams the Earth, the Evil Rights Movement gains new supporters daily, and it may already be a crime to call evil by its right name.


Source:


http://www.theothermccain.com/2013/10/15/cultural-marxism-and-the-very-real-movement-to-normalize-pedophilia/

Sunday, 22 June 2014

The Fable of the Ducks and Hens

The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens 

by

George Lincoln Rockwell



Many, many years ago
When animals could speak,
A wondrous thing the ducks befell;
Their tale is quite unique.

Down by a pond dwelt all these ducks
Ten thousand at the least
Their duckish joys were undisturbed
By any man or beast.

One day down near the entrance gate
There was an awful din
A hundred hens all out of breath
Were begging to come in.

"Oh let us in" these poor birds cried
"Before we do expire!
'Tis only by the merest inch
That we escaped the fire!"

Their feathers burned, their combs adroop
They were the saddest sight.
They'd run a hundred miles or more,
All day and then all night.

Come in! Come in!" the ducks all quacked,
"For you our hearts do bleed!
We'll share our happy lot with you;
Just tell us what you need!"

And so these poor bedraggled hens
Amongst the ducks moved in.
"For after all," the ducks declared,
"We're sisters 'neath the skin."

Before too many months had lapsed,
The hens were good as new.
They sent for all their rooster friends,
And those were welcomed too.

To please their hosts, these chickens tried
To waddle and to quack.
To imitate the duckish ways,
They quickly learned the knack.

This pleased the flock of ducks because
It gratified their pride.
But hear my tale and learn how they
Got taken for a ride.

The ducks, it seemed, spent all their time
In fixing up the place,
In growing food and building homes
And cleaning every space.

They asked the hens what they would do
To earn their daily bread.
"We'll teach and write and entertain
And buy and sell," they said.

And so these hens began to teach
The baby ducks and chicks.
They traded food and eggs and things,
With many clever tricks.

They wrote great books and put on shows
Of genius they'd no lack.
It wasn't long till chickens owned
The Duckville Daily Quack.

One day a mother duck who took
Her ducklings to the lake,
Was flabbergasted when one said,
"A swim I will not take!"

Why duckling's always swim" she gasped,
"It's what you're built to do!
Like bunnies hop, and crickets chirp,
And cows most always moo!"

"You're nuts!" her son replied,
"That stuff is all old hat!
It's wrong for birds to swim, besides
It's damn cold on my prat!"

"Oh fie!" the mother duck exclaimed,
"You're talking like a fool!"
Up quacked the other ducklings then:
"He's right! We learned in school!"

"Such talk must stop!" the mother cried,
"Those hens can't tell such lies!
For sheer ingratitude and nerve,
I'm sure this takes the prize!"

But she was wrong, for even then
The hens did thump the tub
Demanding they be let into
The Duckville Swimming Club.

"But you don't swim!" the ducks exclaimed,
"To join, why should you care?"
"That's not the point" the hens replied,
"To exclude us isn't fair!"

The younger ducks, who'd been to school
Agreed right there and then:
"To keep them out is bigotry!
'Twould just be anti-hen!"

Outnumbered by the younger ducks,
The old ducks soon did lose.
The hens could join the Swimming Club,
If they would pay the dues.

That night the Duckville Daily Quack
Contained this banner spread:
"REACTIONARY DUCKS ARE LICKED!
DUCKVILLE MOVES AHEAD!"

Down at the Duckville Gaity,
The young set laughed with glee,
At cracks about "old fuddy ducks"
In burlesque repartee.

Next day the hens were at the Club;
A petition they'd sent round
They objected to the Swimming Fund
With fury and with sound.

"You use our dues to fix the pond,
To keep it neat and trim
And this is wrong" they said, "because
You know we do not swim!"

"God help us!" exclaimed a wise old duck,
"Those chickens have gone mad!
We'll take this thing to court, by George!
And justice will be had!"

But when they went before the judge,
Imagine their dismay!
A chicken judge decreed that they
A heavy fine must pay!

"Minorities must have their rights!"
The judge declared right then
"To use hens' dues to fix the pond
Is very anti-hen!"

Once more the Duckville Daily Quack
Emblazoned 'cross the page:
"OLD FUDDY DUCKS REFUSE TO SEE
THE GREAT NEW COMING AGE!"

In Duckville's church, on Sunday morn
The preacher spoke these words:
"Discrimination's got to stop!
Remember, we're all birds!"

The wisest duck in all the town
Sat down in black despair
"I'll write a book," he thought, "and then
This madness I will bare!"

Let swimmers swim, let hoppers hop,
Let each go his own way
Let none coerce a fellow bird!"
Was what he had to say.

"'Twas wrong to force the hens to swim,
So here's the problem's crux:
It's just as bad for hens to try
To chickenize our ducks!"

"I can't print that" the printer said
"'Twill put me in a mess!
My shop is mortgaged to the hens
The chickens own my press!"

This worried duck then tried to warn
His friends by speech and pen,
But young ducks fresh from school just jeered,
"He's a vicious anti-hen!"

Now up the stream a little way
Was Gooseville, on the lake
The hens had come to Gooseville too,
But the geese were more awake.

When the hens began to spoil the young
And Gooseville's laws to flout,
The geese rose up in righteous wrath
And simply threw them out.

Of course you know where they all ran;
On Duckville they converged
"We've got to take these refugees"
Was what the ducks all urged.

The Duckville Daily Quack declared:
"Those geese will stop at naught!
They plan to conquer all the world!
Atrocities they've wrought!"

"That's right!" the young ducks all agreed,
"We'll help our fellow birds!
Those geese have plans to conquer us!
We've read the Quack's own words!"

They let the hens from Gooseville in,
The whole bedraggled pack
And every hen took up a job
On Duckville's Daily Quack.

When Duckville's Mayor's term was up,
The Quack put up its duck;
A vain and stupid duck he was,
A veritable cluck!

But when he praised the wild young ducks
And cursed the evil geese,
The Quack declared he was "all-wise"
His praise would never cease.

The hens chipped in to help this cluck
Give grain away for free
The old ducks sadly shook their heads,
The writing they could see.

And sure enough, this stupid duck,
He was elected Mayor
From this point on, the Duckville ducks,
They never had a prayer.

The Mayor said, "Gooseville must go!
We'll wipe them off the map!"
While Duckville slept, the scheming hens
For Gooseville set a trap.

They called the geese by filthy names;
They filled their pond with sticks
They helped the weasels catch the geese,
And other hennish tricks.

The geese got mad and threw some rocks,
"IT'S WAR!" the Quack announced:
"We ducks must fight those evil geese
Till they've been soundly trounced!"

The ducks (who knew not of the tricks
Indulged in by the Mayor)
Were filled with patriotic zeal,
And pitched right in for fair.

Now when the ducks had whipped the geese
The Mayor called "Retreat!
Our Henville friends should really take
Goosevilles's big main street!"

The hens are back in Gooseville now;
They starved and beat the geese
They prayed for peace but organized
The Henville Armed Police.

They drained the Gooseville swimming pond;
And 'De-goose-ified' the schools,
They wrung the neck of Gooseville's Mayor
On lately made up rules.

They formed a council of the hens,
'United Birds' the name
The other birds who joined the thing
Did not perceive their game.

No sooner had they set this up,
Than they announced their plan
To seize up Swanville as a home
For all their hennish clan.

They took a vote amongst the hens,
And every one approved!
"Swanville was for hens!" they said,
"Way back, before we moved."

And so they kicked the swans all out
With Duckville's help and power
And Duckville could not understand
Why swans on them turned sour.

By this time, Duckville was a mess;
The young ducks had gone mad
They stole and laughed at truth and law
They'd gone completely bad.

The hens were selling loco weed
In every nasty den
But ducks who dared to mention this
Were labelled 'anti-hen.'

The hens all preached of 'Tolerance';
They invoked the 'Golden Rule'
But they subsidized the indigent,
The greedy and the fool.

At last the very dumbest ducks
Began to smell a rat
"This Mayor is no good" they cried
"And we will soon fix that!"

But the hens had planned for even this
A candidate they had,
Whom even wise old ducks believed
Just never could be bad.

This hen-tool duck had whipped the geese;
A soldier duck was he
Although the hens had set him up,
The ducks all thought him free.

This hen-tool got elected,
Through ignorance and greed,
Through hennish lies in press and speech
And bribes of 'chicken feed.'

The hens now kicked the ducks around,
Without a blush of shame
Until the Mayor ran the town
In nothing else but name.

They pumped the swimming pond all dry;
They taught the ducks to crow
While duckish numbers dwindled,
The hens began to grow.

The hens stirred up the happy crows
From out the piney wood
To fight and mix and marry ducks
In the name of 'Brotherhood.'

Things got so bad that fifty ducks
Who knew of days gone by,
Took up their wives and children
And decided that they'd fly.

They flew through storm and tempest;
They froze, and many died
But on they drove, until at last
A lovely lake they spied.

They settled down exhausted,
But soon went straight to work
To build and clear and cultivate,
No danger did they shirk.

Now after many years of toil,
This little band had grown
The fields around were full of grain
From seeds that they had sown.

The first ducks now were long since dead;
Their struggles long had ceased
Through hard work and through suffering
Their joys had been increased.

One day down near the entrance gate
There was an awful din
A hundred hens, all out of breath,
Were begging to come in.

"Oh, let us in!" the poor birds cried,
"Before we do expire!
'Tis only by the merest inch..."

This epic really has no end because
No matter how you fight 'em,
Those hens will show up every time
And so... ad infinitum.

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

The books were a front for the porn

There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street.

The pornography section. 

Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.

So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.

This is how I "deconstruct" Lobo's. There are two kinds of people who are going to be looking in through the window: those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, and those who aren't. To those who aren't, the shelves of books transmit the message that gay people are no different from anyone else, that homosexuality is not wrong, just different. Since most of them will never know more about homosexuality than what they learned looking in the window, that impression is of the greatest political and cultural importance, because on that basis they will react without alarm, or even with active support, to the progress of gay rights. There are millions of well-meaning Americans who support gay rights because they believe that what they see looking in at Lobo's is what is really there. It does not occur to them that they are seeing a carefully stage-managed effort to manipulate them, to distract them from a truth they would never condone.

For those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, the view from the street is also consoling. It makes life as a homosexual look safe and unthreatening. Normal, in other words. Sooner or later, many of these people will stop looking in through the window and go inside. Unlike the first sort of window-shopper, they won't be distracted by the books for long. They will soon discover the existence of the porn section. And no matter how distasteful they might find the idea at first (if indeed they do find it distasteful), they will also notice that the porn section is where all the customers are. And they will feel sort of silly standing alone among the books. Eventually, they will find their way back to the porn, with the rest of the customers. And like them, they will start rooting through the videos. And, gentle reader, that is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.

Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time. Like the owners of Lobo's, success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view the whole time. It is no wonder The Wizard of Oz is so resonant among homosexuals. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" could be the motto and the mantra of the whole movement.

No single book was as influential in my own coming out as the now ex-Father John McNeill's 1976 "classic" The Church and the Homosexual. That book is to Dignity what "The Communist Manifesto" was to Soviet Russia. Most of the book is devoted to offering alternative interpretations of the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, and to putting the anti-homosexual writings of the Church Fathers and scholastics into historical context in a way that renders them irrelevant and even offensive to modern readers. The first impression of a naïve and sexually conflicted young reader such as myself was that McNeill had offered a plausible alternative to traditional teaching. It made me feel justified in deciding to come out of the closet. Were his arguments persuasive? Frankly, I didn't care, and I don't believe most of McNeill's readers do either. They were couched in the language of scholarship, and they sounded plausible. That was all that mattered.

McNeill, like most of the members of his camp, treated the debate over homosexuality as first and foremost a debate about the proper interpretation of texts, texts such as the Sodom story in the Bible and the relevant articles of the Summa. The implication was that once those were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists had prevailed, and the door was open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because, as anyone familiar with the history of Protestantism should be aware, the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of people such as McNeill don't need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful.

This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naïve attempt to rebut him, naïve because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, "You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can't we just agree to disagree?" That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.

Even as a naïve young man, one aspect of The Church and the Homosexual struck me as odd. Given that McNeill was suggesting a radical revision of the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, there was almost nothing in it about sexual ethics. The Catholic sexual ethic is quite specific about the ends of human sexuality, and about the forms of behavior that are consistent with those ends. McNeill's criticism of the traditional ethic occupied most of his book, but he left the reader with only the vaguest idea about what he proposed to put in its place. For that matter, there was almost nothing in it about the real lives of real homosexuals. Homosexuality was treated throughout the book as a kind of intellectual abstraction. But I was desperate to get some idea of what was waiting for me on the other side of the closet door. And with no one but Fr. McNeill for a guide, I was reduced to reading between the lines. There was a single passage that I interpreted as a clue. It was almost an aside, really. At one point, he commented that monogamous same-sex unions were consistent with the Church's teaching, or at least consistent with the spirit of the renewed and renovated post-Vatican II Church. With nothing else to go on, I interpreted this in a prescriptive sense. I interpreted McNeill to be arguing that homogenital acts were only moral when performed in the context of a monogamous relationship. And furthermore, I leapt to what seemed like the reasonable conclusion that the author was aware of such relationships, and that I had a reasonable expectation of finding such a relationship myself. Otherwise, for whose benefit was he writing? I was not so naïve (although I was pretty naïve) as not to be aware of the existence of promiscuous homosexual men. But McNeill's aside, which, I repeat, contained virtually his only stab at offering a gay sexual ethic, led me to believe that in addition to the promiscuous, there existed a contingent of gay men who were committed to living in monogamy. Otherwise, Fr. McNeill was implicitly defending promiscuity. And the very idea of a priest defending promiscuity was inconceivable to me. (Yes, that naïve.)

Several years ago, McNeill published an autobiography. In it, he makes no bones about his experiences as a sexually active Catholic priest -- a promiscuous, sexually active, homosexual Catholic priest. He writes in an almost nostalgic fashion about his time spent hunting for sex in bars. Although he eventually did find a stable partner (while he was still a priest), he never apologizes for his years of promiscuity, or even so much as alludes to the disparity between his own life and the passage in The Church and the Homosexual that meant so much to me. It is possible that he doesn't even remember suggesting that homosexuals were supposed to remain celibate until finding monogamous relationships. It is obvious that he never meant that passage to be taken seriously, except by those who would never do more than look in the window -- in others words, gullible, well-meaning, non-homosexual Catholics, preferably those in positions of authority. Or, equally naïve and gullible young men such as me who werelooking for a reason to act on their sexual desires, preferably one that did not do too much violence to their consciences, at least not at first. The latter, the writer presumed, would eventually find their way back to the porn section, where their complicity in the scam would render them indistinguishable from the rest of the regular customers. Clearly, there was a reason that in the earlier book he wrote so little about the real lives of real homosexuals, such as himself.

I don't see how the contradiction between The Church and the Homosexual and the autobiography could be accidental. Why would McNeill pretend to believe that homosexuals should restrict themselves to sex within the context of monogamous relationships when his life demonstrates that he did not? I can think of only one reason. Because he knew that if he told the truth, his cause would be dead in the water. Although to this day McNeill, like all gay Christian propagandists, avoids the subject of sexual ethics as if it were some sort of plague, his life makes his real beliefs clear. He believes in unrestricted sexual freedom. He believes that men and women should have the right to couple, with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and as often as they want. He would probably add some sort of meaningless bromide about no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect, but anyone familiar with the snake pit of modern sexual culture (both heterosexual and homosexual) willknow how seriously to take that. And he knew perfectly well that if he were honest about his real aims, there would be no Dignity, there would be no gay Christian movement, at least not one with a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. That would be like getting rid of the books and letting the casual window-shoppers see the porn. And we can't have that now, can we? In other words, the ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.

Let me be clear. I believe that McNeill's real beliefs, as deduced from his actual behavior, and distinguished from the arguments he puts forward for the benefit of the naïve and gullible, represent the real aims and objectives of the homosexual rights movement. They are the porn that the books are meant to conceal. In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as "the blessing of same-sex unions," in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left. I once heard a heterosexual Episcopalian put it this way: If I don't want the church poking its nose into my bedroom, how can I condone it when it limits the sexual freedom of homosexuals? That might sound outrageous, but if you still believe that the debate is over the religious status of monogamous same-sex relationships, please be prepared to point out one church somewhere in the U.S. that has opened its doors to active homosexuals without also opening them to every other form of sexual coupling imaginable. I am too old to be taken in by "Father" McNeill and his abstractions anymore. Show me.

A few years ago, I subscribed to the Dignity Yahoo group on the Internet. There were at that time several hundred subscribers. At one point, a confused and troubled young man posted a question to the group: Did any of the subscribers attach any value to monogamy? I immediately wrote back that I did. A couple of days later the young man wrote back to me. He had received dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning, and all but one -- mine -- telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about. (This was a gay "Catholic" group.) He did not know what to make of it because none of the propaganda to which he was exposed before coming out prepared him for what was really on the other side of the closet door. I had no idea what to tell him, because at the time I was still caught up in the lie myself. Now, the solution seems obvious. What I should have written back to him was, "You have been lied to. Ask God for forgiveness and get back to Kansas as fast as you can. Auntie Em is waiting."

In light of all the legitimate concern about Internet pornography, it might seem ironic to assert that the Internet helped rescue me from homosexuality. For twenty years, I thought there was something wrong with me. Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals. They assured me that they themselves knew personally (for a fact and for real) that such men existed. They themselves knew such men (or at least had heard tell of them from those who did). And I believed it, although as the years passed it got harder and harder. Then I got a personal computer and a subscription to AOL. "O.K.," I reasoned, "morally conservative homosexuals are obviously shy and skittish and fearful of sudden movements. They don't like bars and bathhouses. Neither do I. They don't attend Dignity meetings or Metropolitan Community Church services because the gay 'churches' are really bathhouses masquerading as houses of worship. But there is no reason a morally conservative homosexual cannot subscribe to AOL and submit a profile. If I can do it, anyone can do it." So I did it. I wrote a profile describing myself as a conservative Catholic (comme ci, comme ça) who loved classical music and theater and good books and scintillating conversation about all of the above. I said I wanted very much to meet other like-minded homosexuals for the purposes of friendship and romance. I tried to be as clear as I knew how. I was not interested in one night stands. And within minutes of placing the profile, I got my first response. It consisted of three words: "How many inches?" My experience of looking for love on AOL went downhill rapidly from there.

When I first came out in the 1980s, it was common for gay rights apologists to blame the promiscuity among gay men on "internalized homophobia." Gay men, like African Americans, internalized and acted out the lies about themselves learned from mainstream American culture. Furthermore, homosexuals were forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of a homophobic mainstream. The solution to this problem, we were told, was permitting homosexuals to come out into the open, without fear of retribution. A variant of this argument is still put forward by activists such as Andrew Sullivan, in order to legitimate same-sex marriage. And it seemed reasonable enough twenty years ago. But thirty-five years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.

There is another reason, apart from the propaganda value, that bookstores like Lobo's peddle porn as well as poetry. Because without the porn, they would soon go out of business. And, in fact, most gay bookstores have gone out of business, despite the porn. Following an initial burst of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s, gay publishing went into steep decline, and shows no signs of coming out of it. Once the novelty wore off, gay men soon bored of reading about men having sex with one another, preferring to devote their time and disposable income to pursuing the real thing. Gay and lesbian community centers struggle to keep their doors open. Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their soiled consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars. And there is no danger of ever hearing a word from the pulpit suggesting that bar-hopping is inconsistent with believing in the Bible. When I lived in the United Kingdom, I was struck by the extent to which gay culture in London replicated gay culture in the U.S. The same was true in Paris, Amsterdam, and Berlin. Homosexuality is one of America's most successful cultural exports. And the focus on gay social spaces in Europe is identical to their focus in America: sex. Cyberspace is now the latest conquest of that amazing modern Magellan: the male homosexual in pursuit of new sexual conquests.

But at this point, how is it possible to blame the promiscuity among homosexual men on homophobia, internalized or otherwise? On the basis of evidence no stronger than wishful thinking, Andrew Sullivan wants us to believe that legalizing same-sex "marriage" will domesticate gay men, that all that energy now devoted to building bars and bathhouses will be dedicated to erecting picket fences and two-car garages. What Sullivan refuses to face is that male homosexuals are not promiscuous because of "internalized homophobia," or laws banning same-sex "marriage." Homosexuals are promiscuous because when given the choice, homosexuals overwhelmingly choose to be promiscuous. And wrecking the fundamental social building block of our civilization, the family, is not going to change that.

I once read a disarmingly honest essay in which Sullivan as much as admitted his real reason for promoting the cause of same-sex "marriage." He faced up to the sometimes sordid nature of his sexual life, which is more than most gay activists are prepared to do, and he regretted it. He wished he had led a different sort of life, and he apparently believes that if marriage were a legal option, he might have been able to do so. I have a lot more respect for Andrew Sullivan than I do for most gay activists. I believe that he would seriously like to reconcile his sexual desires with the demands of his conscience. But with all due respect, are the rest of us prepared to sacrifice the institution of the family in the unsubstantiated hope that doing so will make it easier for Sullivan to keep his trousers zipped?

But isn't it theoretically possible that homosexuals could restrict themselves to something resembling the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, except for the part about procreation -- in other words, monogamous lifelong relationships? Of course it is theoretically possible. It was also theoretically possible in 1968 that the use of contraceptives could be restricted to married couples, that the revolting downward slide into moral anarchy we have lived through could have been avoided. It is theoretically possible, but it is practically impossible. It is impossible because the whole notion of stable sexual orientation on which the gay rights movement is founded has no basis in fact.

René Girard, the French literary critic and sociologist of religion, argues that all human civilization is founded on desire. All civilizations have surrounded the objects of desire (including sexual desire) with an elaborate and unbreachable wall of taboos and restrictions. Until now. What we are seeing in the modern West is not the long overdue legitimization of hitherto despised but honorable forms of human love. What we are witnessing is the reduction of civilization to its lowest common denominator: unbridled and unrestricted desire. To assert that we have opened a Pandora's Box would be a stunning understatement. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, it looks to be a bumpy millennium.

When I was growing up, we were all presumed to be heterosexual. Then homosexuality was introduced as an alternative. That did not at first seem like a major revision because, apart from procreation, homosexuality, at least in theory, left the rest of the traditional sexual ethic in tact. Two people of the same gender could (in theory) fall in love and live a life of monogamous commitment. Then bisexuality was introduced, and the real implications of the sexual revolution became clear. Monogamy was out the window. Moral norms were out the window. Do-it-yourself sexuality became the norm. Anyone who wants to know what that looks like can do no better than go online. The Internet offers front row seats to the circus of a disintegrating civilization.

Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo makes it possible for people sharing a common interest to create groups for the purpose of making contacts and sharing information. If that conjures up images of genealogists and stamp collectors, think again. There are now thousands of Yahoo groups catering to every kind of sexual perversion imaginable. Many of them would defy the imagination of the Marquis de Sade himself. People who until a few years ago could do nothing but fantasize now entertain serious hopes of acting out their fantasies. I met a man online whose fondest wish was to be spanked with a leather wallet. It had to be leather. And it had to be a wallet. And he needed to be spanked with it. Old-fashioned genital friction was optional. This man wanted a Gucci label tattooed across his backside. He could imagine no loftier pinnacle of passion. And he insisted that this desire was as fundamental to his sexual nature as the desire to go to bed with a man was for me. Furthermore, he had formed a Yahoo group that had more than three hundred members, all of whom shared the same passion. There is no object in the universe, no human or animal body part, that cannot be eroticized. So, is the desire to be spanked with a leather wallet a "sexual orientation"? If not, how is it different?

There was a time when I would have snorted, "Of course it is different. You can't share a life with a leather wallet. You can't love a leather wallet. What you are talking about is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. The two are completely different." But the truth is that all the gay men I encountered had a fetish for naked male skin, with all the objectification and depersonalization that implies, that I now consider the distinction sophistical. Leather is skin too, after all. The only real difference between the fellow on the Internet and the average gay man is that he preferred his skin Italian, bovine, and tanned.

Over the years, I have attended various gay and gay-friendly church services. All of them shared one characteristic in common: a tacit agreement never to say a word from the pulpit -- or from any other location for that matter -- suggesting that there ought to be any restrictions on human sexual behavior. If anyone reading this is familiar with Dignity or Integrity or the Metropolitan Community churches or, for that matter, mainline Protestantism and most of post-Vatican II Catholicism, let me ask you one question: When was the last time you heard a sermon on sexual ethics? Have you ever heard a sermon on sexual ethics? I take it for granted that the answer is negative. Do our priests and pastors honestly believe that Christians in America are not in need of sermons on sexual ethics?

Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be welcoming to our Communion rails (presuming that we still have Communion rails) not just the statistically insignificant number of same-sex couples who have lived together for more than a few years (most of whom purchased stability by jettisoning monogamy); we will also be legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism. We will, in other words, be giving our blessing to the suicide of Western civilization.

But what about all those images of loving same-sex couples dying to get hitched with which the media are awash these days? That used to confuse me too. It seems that The New York Times has no trouble finding successful same-sex partners to photograph and interview. But despite my best efforts, I was never able to meet the sorts of couples who show up regularly on Oprah. The media are biased and have no interest in telling the truth about homosexuality.

I met Wyatt (not his real name) online. For five years he was in a disastrous same-sex relationship. His partner was unfaithful, and an alcoholic with drug problems. The relationship was something that would give Strindberg nightmares. When Vermont legalized same-sex "marriage," Wyatt saw it as one last chance to make their relationship work. He and his partner would fly to Vermont to get "married." This came to the attention of the local newspaper in his area, which did a story with photos of the wedding reception. In it, Wyatt and his partner were depicted as a loving couple who finally had a chance to celebrate their commitment publicly. Nothing was said about the drugs or the alcoholism or the infidelity. But the marriage was a failure and ended in flames a few months later. And the newspaper did not do a follow-up. In other words, the leading daily of one of America's largest cities printed a misleading story about a bad relationship, a story that probably persuaded more than one young man that someday he could be just as happy as Wyatt and his "partner." And that is the sad part.

But one very seldom reads about people like my friend Harry. Harry (not his real name) was a balding, middle-aged man with a potbelly. He was married, and had a couple of grown daughters. And he was unhappy. Harry persuaded himself that he was unhappy because he was gay. He divorced his wife, who is now married to someone else, his daughters are not speaking to him, and he is discovering that pudgy, bald, middle-aged men are not all that popular in gay bars. Somehow, Oprah forgot to mention that. Now Harry is taking anti-depressants in order to keep from killing himself.

Then there was another acquaintance, who also happened to have the same name as the previous guy. Harry (not his real name) was about 30 (but could easily pass for 20), and from a Mormon background, with all the naïveté that suggests. Unlike the first Harry, he had no difficulty getting dates. Or relationships for that matter. The problem was that the relationships never lasted more than a couple of weeks. Harry was also rapidly developing a serious drinking problem. (So much for the Mormon words of wisdom.) If you happened to be at the bar around two in the morning, you could probably have Harry for the night if you were interested. He was so drunk he wouldn't remember you the next day, and all he really wanted at that point was for someone to hold him.

Gay culture is a paradox. Most homosexuals tend to be liberal Democrats, or in the U.K., supporters of the Labour Party. They gravitate toward those Parties on the grounds that their policies are more compassionate and sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed. But there is nothing compassionate about a gay bar. It represents a laissez faire free sexual market of the most Darwinian sort. There is no place in it for those who are not prepared to compete, and the rules of the game are ruthless and unforgiving. I remember once being in a gay pub in central London. Most of the men there were buff and toned and in their 20s or early 30s. An older gentleman walked in, who looked to be in his 70s. It was as if the Angel of Death himself had made an entrance. In that crowded bar, a space opened up around him that no one wanted to enter. His shadow transmitted contagion. It was obvious that his presence made the other customers nervous. He stood quietly at the bar and ordered a drink. He spoke to no one and no one spoke to him. When he eventually finished his drink and left, the sigh of relief from all those buff, toned pub crawlers was almost audible. Now all of them could go back to pretending that gay men were all young and beautiful forever. Gentle reader, do you know what a "bug chaser" is? A bug chaser is a young gay man who wants to contract HIV so that he will never grow old. And that is the world that Harry left his wife, and the other Harry his Church, to find happiness in.

I have known a lot of people like the two Harrys. But I have met precious few who bore more than a superficial resemblance to the idealized images we see in Oscar-winning movies such as Philadelphia, or in the magazine section of The New York Times. What I find suspicious is that the media ignore the existence of people like the two Harrys. The unhappiness so common among homosexuals is swept under the carpet, while fanciful and unrealistic "role models" are offered up for public consumption. There is at the very least grounds for a serious debate about the proposition that "gay is good," but no such debate is taking place, because most of the mainstream media have already made up their (and our) minds.

But it is hard to hide the porn forever. When I was living in London, I had a wonderful friend named Maggie. Maggie (not her real name) was a liberal. Her big heart bled for the oppressed. Like most liberals, she was proud of her open-mindedness and wore it like a badge of honor. Maggie lived in a house as big as her heart and all of her children were grown up and had moved out. She had a couple of rooms to rent. It just so happened that both the young men who became her tenants were gay. Maggie's first reaction was enthusiastic. She had never known many gay people, and thought the experience of renting to two homosexuals would confirm her in her open-mindedness. She believed it would be a learning experience. It was, but not the sort she had in mind. One day Maggie told me her troubles and confessed her doubts. She talked about what it was like to stumble each morning down to the breakfast table, finding two strangers seated there, the two strangers her tenants brought home the night before. It was seldom the same two strangers two mornings running. One of her tenants was in a long-distance relationship but, in the absence of his partner, felt at liberty to seek consolation elsewhere. She talked about what it was like to have to deal on a daily basis with the emotional turmoil of her tenants' tumultuous lives. She told me what it was like to open the door one afternoon and find a policeman standing there, a policeman who was looking for one of her tenants, who was accused of trying to sell drugs to school children. That same tenant was also involved in prostitution. Maggie didn't know what to make of it all. She desperately wanted to remain open-minded, to keep believing that gay men were no worse than anyone else, just different. But she couldn't reconcile her experience with that "tolerant" assumption. The truth was that when the two finally moved out, an event to which she was looking forward with some enthusiasm, and it was time to place a new ad for rooms to let, she wanted to include the following proviso: Fags need not apply. I didn't know what to tell Maggie because I was just as confused as she was. I wanted to hold on to my illusions too, in spite of all the evidence.

I am convinced that many, if not most, people who are familiar with the lives of homosexuals know the truth, but refuse to face it. My best friend got involved in the gay rights movement as a graduate student. He and a lesbian colleague sometimes counseled young men who were struggling with their sexuality. Once, the two of them met a young man who was seriously overweight and suffered from terrible acne. The young man waxed eloquent about the happiness he expected to find when he came out of the closet. He was going to find a partner, and the two of them would live happily ever after. The whole time my friend was thinking that if someone looking like this fat, pustulent young man ever walked into a bar, he would be folded, spindled, and mutilated before even taking a seat. Afterwards, the lesbian turned to him and said, "You know, sometimes it is better to stay in the closet." My friend told me that for him this represented a decisive moment. This lesbian claimed to love and admire gay men. She never stopped praising their kindness and compassion and creativity. But with that one comment she in effect told my friend that she really knew what gay life was all about. It was about meat, and unless you were a good cut, don't bother coming to the supermarket.

On another occasion, I was complaining to a lesbian about my disillusionment. She made a remarkable admission to me. She had a teenage son, who so far had not displayed signs of sexual interest in either gender. She knew as a lesbian she should not care which road he took. But she confessed to me that she did care. Based on the lives of the gay men she knew, she found herself secretly praying that her son would turn out to be straight. As a mother, she did not want to see her son living that life.

A popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. That was me, the whole time I was laboring to become a happy homosexual. I was a lunatic. Several times I turned for advice to gay men who seemed better adjusted to their lot in life than I was. First, I wanted confirmation that my perceptions were accurate, that life as a male homosexual really was as awful as it seemed to be. And then I wanted to know what I was supposed to do about it. When was it going to get better? What could I do to make it better? I got two sorts of reactions to these questions, both of which left me feeling hurt and confused. The first sort of reaction was denial, often bitter denial, of what I was suggesting. I was told that there was something wrong with me, that most gay men were having a wonderful time, that I was generalizing on the basis of my own experience (whose experience was I supposed to generalize from?), and that I should shut up and stop bothering others with my "internalized homophobia."

I began seeing a counselor when I was a graduate student. Matt (not his real name) was a happily married man with college-age children. All he knew about homosexuality he learned from the other members of his profession, who assured him that homosexuality was not a mental illness and that there were no good reasons that homosexuals could not lead happy, productive lives. When I first unloaded my tale of woe, Matt told me I had never really come out of the closet. (I still have no idea what he meant, but suspect it is like the "once saved, always saved" Baptist who responds to the lapsed by telling him that he was never really saved in the first place.) I needed to go back, he told me, try again, and continue to look for the positive experiences he was sure were available for me, on the basis of no other evidence than the rulings of the American Psychiatric Association. He had almost no personal experience of homosexuals, but his peers assured him that the book section at Lobo's offered a true picture of homosexual life. I knew Matt was clueless, but I still wanted to believe he was right.

Matt and I developed a therapeutic relationship. During the year we spent together, he learned far more from me than I did from him. I tried to take his advice. I was sharing a house that year with another grad student who was in the process of coming out and experiencing his own disillusionment. Because I had been his only gay friend, and had encouraged him to come out, his bitterness came to be directed at me, and our relationship suffered for it. Meanwhile, I developed a close friendship with a member of the faculty who was openly gay. When I first informed Matt, he was ecstatic. He thought I was finally come out properly. The faculty member was just the sort of friend I needed. But the faculty member, as it turned out, despite his immaculate professional facade, was a deeply disturbed man who put all of his friends through emotional hell, which I of course shared with a shocked and silenced Matt. (I tried to date but, as usual, experienced the same pattern that characterized all my homosexual relationships. The friendship lasted as long as the sexual heat. Once that cooled, my partner's interest in me as a person dissipated with it.) It was not a good year. At the end of it, I remember Matt staring at me, with glazed eyes and a shell-shocked look on his face, and admitting, "You know, being gay is a lot harder than I realized."

Not everyone I spoke to over the years rejected what I had to say out of hand. I once corresponded with an English ex-Dominican. I was ecstatic to learn that he was gay, and was eventually kicked out of his order for refusing to remain in the closet. He included an e-mail address in one of his books, and I wrote him, wanting to know if his experience of life as a homosexual was significantly different from mine. I presumed it must be, since he had written a couple of books, passionately defending the right of homosexuals to a place in the Church. His response to me was one of the last nails in the coffin of my life as a gay man. To my astonishment, he admitted that his experiences were not unlike mine. All he could suggest was that I keep trying, and eventually everything would work out. In other words, this brilliant man, whose books had meant so much to me, had nothing to suggest except that I keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. There was only one reasonable conclusion. I would be nuts if I took his advice. It took me twenty years, but I finally reached the conclusion that I did not want to be insane.

So where am I now? I am attending a militantly orthodox parish in Houston that is one of God's most spectacular gifts to me. My best friend Mark (not his real name) is, like me, a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum. He is also a devout believer, though a Presbyterian (no one is perfect). From Mark I have learned that two men can love each other profoundly while remaining clothed the entire time.

We are told that the Church opposes same-sex love. Not true. The Church opposes homogenital sex, which in my experience is not about love, but about obsession, addiction, and compensation for a compromised masculinity.

I am not proud of the life I have lived. In fact, I am profoundly ashamed of it. But if reading this prevents one naïve, gullible man from making the same mistakes, then perhaps with the assistance of Our Lady of Guadalupe; of St. Joseph, her chaste spouse; of my patron saint, Edmund Campion; of St. Josemaría Escrivá; of the blessed Carmelite martyrs of Compiégne; and, last but not least, of my special supernatural guide and mentor, the Venerable John Henry Newman, I can at least hope for a reprieve from some of the many centuries in Purgatory I have coming to me.

So, what do we as a Church and a culture need to do? Tear down the respectable façade and expose the pornography beneath. Start pressuring homosexuals to tell the truth about their lives. Stop debating the correct interpretation of Genesis 19. Leave the men of Sodom and Gomorrah buried in the brimstone where they belong. Sodom is hidden in plain view from us, here and now, today. Once, when preparing a lecture on Cardinal Newman, I summarized his classic Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in this fashion: Truth ripens, error rots. The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. Sooner or later, those who are caught up in it are going to wake up from the dream of unbridled desire or else die. It is just a matter of time. The question is: how long? How many children are going to be sacrificed to this Moloch?

Until several months ago, there was a Lobo's in Houston too. Not accidentally, I'm sure, its layout was identical to the one in Austin. It was just a few blocks from the gas station where I take my car for service. Recently, I was taking a walk through the neighborhood while my tires were being rotated. And I noticed something. There was a padlock on the door at Lobo's. A sign on the door read, "The previous tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent." The books and the porn, the façade and what it conceals, are gone now. Praise God.

The New Oxford Review is a Catholic monthly magazine. February 2006, Volume LXXIII, Number 2. Copyright 2006 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission. http://www.newoxfordreview.org/

--Ronald G. Lee is a librarian in Houston, Texas.

Source: THE BOOKS WERE A FRONT FOR THE PORN  - http://ow.ly/xTaTy

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...