Karl Marx And The Class Struggle

Although he didn’t introduce the theory of class struggle (1) into socialist pseudo-history, this concept has become universally identified with Karl Marx and his crackpot system of economics. It has also become a stock in trade not just of socialists but of many academics and others, as has its derivative, the concept of “oppression”. That goes something like this: some groups, be they social, national, ethnic or whatever, have more than others. More money, more liberties - real and imagined - therefore these groups “oppress” those lower down the socio-economic scale.

This is not to say that some groups are not oppressed, or that they haven’t had a hard time historically. Clearly, women have been the chattels of men; blacks - and many whites - have been held in bondage; it isn’t even that long since little boys were shoved up chimneys. But the concept of oppression goes much deeper than this, as does the class struggle. The class struggle is seen by those who call themselves Marxists and socialists - not necessarily the followers of Karl Marx (2) - as the only war worth fighting, and indeed a war which they wage unremittingly against the alleged evil of capitalism.

In order to join in the class struggle, one does not have to belong to an oppressed minority, indeed it is the greatest irony of socialism that some of its backers have been and continue to be, extremely wealthy. (3) Almost any minority except white South Africans and fascists can be and has been classified by the Marxist left as oppressed. As soon as a group becomes recognised as an oppressed minority it is entitled to whine and wail about how oppressed it is, and to demand special favours and privileges to amend for past social injustices, real and imagined.

There are those, particularly on the extreme right of politics, who believe that the promotion of homosexuality is yet another branch of the international communist (and sometimes Jewish or Jewish/communist) conspiracy. We will deal with Judaism later, but the communists can already be exonerated. The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality informs us that “As early as the 1920s leaders of Western Communist parties began to float the idea that...homosexual activity...resulted from the decadence of capitalism in its death throes. Homosexuality was to disappear in the healthy new society of the future.” (4) While in Weimar Germany, Marxists attacked homosexuality as a “fascist perversion”. It may in fact have been this opprobrium for homosexual perversion that led Hitler to purge the homosexual Ernst Rohm in the 1934 “Night of the Long Knives”. (5) Clearly, in those days communism was a respectable if terrible philosophy.

From “Oppressed Minorities”
To Pressure Groups

The group that started the ball rolling was probably Organised Jewry. In the late 19th Century, pogroms were common in Russia and elsewhere, so Jews organised to lobby governments, to relieve poverty and campaign for civil rights etc. The suffragettes also organised, and established pressure groups such as the trades unions lent their weight to various causes, including many worthy ones.

In the late 1950s and early 60s the misnamed civil rights movement took off in the United States. And very soon, many people who had supported the cause of Negro suffrage and equality of opportunity became disillusioned when they saw the Negro leaders demanding - and getting - not equal rights, but special privileges for their race. Racial quotas is a good example.

Even so, most people can live with the idea of “uppity” Negroes, pushy Jews or feisty women, but when perverts start getting organised and forcing their lifestyles down people’s throats, it’s time to say enough is enough and make a stand, not only for commonsense but for civilisation.

All the world’s great religions frown on homosexuality, or at least they had frowned upon it universally until very recently. Because most countries have a national religion, this has meant that homosexuality has been taboo virtually throughout the world. Generally, homosexuality has been against the law, although at times the law against consenting male sodomy and other homosexual practices, has been enforced selectively. Selective enforcement of the law is a bad thing in both principle and practice because it allows governments and individual police officers to persecute individuals arbitrarily. Laws should either be enforced to their full extent or repealed. Bad laws should be repealed.

The law against homosexual acts between consenting adults on private property is a bad law per se because however revolted we may be by the obscene practices of homosexuals, the state has no right to dictate to any individual how he or she may dispose of or employ his or her property. And the one piece of property everyone owns is his own body. Up until 1861, sodomy was a crime in England punishable by death. (6) The Sexual Offences Act, 1967 decriminalised it entirely, but the age of consent for homosexual acts remained 21. The age of consent for heterosexual acts is 16 years and is likely to remain so for many years to come, in spite of attempts to “reform” the law further. Such attempts are supported by misguided Libertarians and other civil liberties campaigners, as well as outright perverts like the Paedophile Information Exchange. (7)

Although the word gay has been used to describe homosexuals since at least 1933, (8) it was not until the late sixties, early seventies that it was “verbally kidnapped” by the organised homosexual movement. Indeed, there was no “homosexual movement” at all until the Stonewall incident. (9)

Both Jews and blacks have exaggerated their suffering, but the reality of pogroms and other organised murder and hate campaigns remains, as does the reality of slavery, lynching and the more repressive aspects of segregation and apartheid. Likewise, homosexuals have exaggerated - and continue to exaggerate - their oppression at the hands of the state, violence directed against them by people who are revolted by their perversion, and so on. But from a purely civil liberties perspective, homosexuals have had a raw deal, as have many other groups. The big difference is that blacks and other minorities have suffered oppression on account of their biology. Which is both ignorant and stupid. (10) Homosexuals only claim to have suffered persecution, discrimination and harassment on account of their biology; the reality is that whatever psychological factors are involved in homosexuality, the homosexual act, like any other act, be it theft, arson, murder, is ultimately voluntary. No one has to engage in homosexual practices. (11)

As homosexuals got organised they began to exert pressure on society, not just for desirable social change - in their case the freedom to engage in their bizarre practices on private property and to drown in their own poison - but to obtain special privileges, in particular, taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money. In the 1970s in Britain, many Labour-controlled local authorities fell into the hands of altruistic far left collectivists, popularised by the gutter press as the loony left. A good definition of altruism is being kind with other peoples’ money. Along with blacks, Indians, Moslems, Jews, the Irish, the disabled, and many other “minorities” - some of them extremely creative - homosexuals formed pressure groups, told their tale of woe to sympathetic left wing councils, and duly took their place at the communal trough.

Similar scenarios were played out in the United States; it is probably safe to say that since Stonewall, homosexuals have become one of the best organised and most highly politicised minorities in Western society. They are also concentrated in certain large cities and conurbations, (12) and in certain professions. They and their sympathisers are very influential in certain segments of the media, although some media, in particular the gutter press, has always been, and hopefully will remain, hostile to their particularly pernicious brand of poison.

This means that homosexuals make a lot of noise, and, together with many non-homosexual sympathisers - usually ultra-leftists - they have managed, like many other minorities, to bring about a public perception of their case which can most charitably be described as far more favourable than it should be.

The Mythical One In Ten

One of the standard techniques of empire builders everywhere is to exaggerate the magnitude of the problems they face so as to bolster their own importance. This applies also to their own numbers. In 1948, the quack sexologist Dr Alfred Kinsey published his now legendary report on the sexual habits of the human male. (13) A full discussion of Kinsey’s flawed methodology would take us far afield, it will suffice here to say that this “study” leaves much to be desired. It has since been savaged by two researchers who have accused Kinsey of outright fraud and much else besides. (14)

The main thrust of Kinsey’s bogus report is that sexual perversion exists on such a massive scale in society that it must be considered normal. Kinsey himself appears to have considered even bestiality normal, (15) yet his “findings” have become the starting point for almost all subsequent research in this field. Extrapolating from Kinsey’s abnormal samples, homosexual activists and sex perverts (16) have claimed that up to one in ten of the population is homosexual. (17) The misnamed gay rights movement seeks therefore to “normalise” homosexuality. Like most every other political ideology, it has an effective propaganda machine, and will not hesitate to mislead or lie to academics, politicians, the media, the public, and all and sundry in order to secure its goals.

What Are The Goals Of
The “Gay” Rights Movement?

The Nazi Party published its programme in 1932. Planks 3 and 4 stated candidly: “Dismissal of all Jews and non-Germans from all responsible positions in public life” and “Prevention of immigration of Eastern Jews and other parasitic foreigners. Undesirable foreigners and Jews to be deported.” (18)

One must not of course take at face value everything the Nazis or any other political party said or says, but such bellicose pronouncements should always sound warning bells. Homosexuals are no less fascistic than Nazis when it comes to imposing their perverted ideology on the rest of mankind. In 1971, the organised homosexual movement in Britain published a manifesto. (Carl Wittman’s A Gay Manifesto was published as early as 1969, in the United States). The second edition of the British manifesto appeared in 1979, a decade and a half before the current writer sat in front of his word processor to formulate this analysis. Just as much could have been gained by taking the Nazis seriously in 1932, so can much be gained, and may yet be gained, if we begin to take the organised homosexual movement seriously, even at this late hour. We are not dealing here with a bunch of hysterical fairies and screaming queens, nor figures of fun as portrayed by the ultra-camp Julian Clary, (19) but with totally ruthless, quasi-fascistic militant homos, who, like their fellow travellers in the misnamed anti-fascist movement, believe that might is right and that they have not only a right but a duty to create civil disobedience, mayhem and outrage, and to misinform, traduce and lie, in order to further their perverted agenda, which is to impose their pernicious poison on the rest of mankind. Let us therefore make a textual analysis of the demands of this insidious movement, strip away the rhetoric, and leave the reality for all to see. All who are not wilfully blind.

The “Gay” Rights Manifesto, 1979:
An Analysis

The manifesto of gay liberation in Britain was published as a 12 page pamphlet by the Gay Liberation Information Service. (20) The publisher’s address, 5 Caledonian Road, is Housmans’ Bookshop, a well known London “radical” book shop. Today, Housmans’ stocks a wide range of homosexual and pro-homosexual literature, much of it political. It also sells a wide variety of anarchist, socialist and communist literature: books, pamphlets, periodicals etc, such as one finds in “radical” book shops everywhere. Presumably it sold much the same in 1979.

Now for the manifesto itself. On the very first page it is claimed that the family “oppresses” homosexuals; the man is in charge, his wife is his slave, and the two of them force themselves on their children as models. This hostility to the traditional family is a central theme of homosexual literature, and is often quite blatant.

On page 2 it is asserted that the child is forced into a rigid sex role “...which we did not want or need.” And who is we? The idea of a rigid sex role is not defined, but presumably this means such things as boys wearing trousers, girls playing with dolls, and the like.

On the same page, the whining complaint is made that homosexuals have been attacked by religion, in particular Christianity and Judaism, and that the media “oppresses” them. It is certainly true that throughout history, all the world’s major religions worthy of the name have condemned homosexuality in quite explicit terms, the same way they have condemned all sinful activity. One preacher, from a black church in Brixton, South London, put this in a nutshell. If God had wanted man to have sex with man, he would have created Adam and Adam, he said. (21)

However, this is sadly not now the case. Homosexuals have insinuated their way into both the Christian Church and the Jewish religion. There are even a number of gay synagogues in the United States. (22) In the UK, the Chief Rabbi Emeritus, Lord Immanuel Jakobowits, (23) has been an uncompromising critic of homosexuality and has even suggest that genetic engineering could be used to eradicate this perversion from society forever. (24) As a result of this, Britain’s leading Talmudic scholar (25) has been viciously attacked by the forever wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth homosexual lobby, who have on at least one occasion picketed a synagogue, and have hounded him in academia. (26) The militant homosexual group OutRage, which is headed by Peter Tatchell, claims to have the support of many Jewish homosexuals. The Orthodox Jewish view is that you can’t be Jewish if you’re queer, whatever the Law of Return. (27) In return, Tatchell’s group was rewarded with the stock charge of anti-Semitism. (28)

The slow infiltration of the Jewish religion follows the infiltration of the Christian Church by homosexuals. In May 1976, the so-called Gay Christian Movement (now the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement) began publication of a regular bulletin. That same year, censorship campaigner Mary Whitehouse initiated a private prosecution against the homosexual publications Gay News for publishing a grossly blasphemous poem which described the sexual abuse of the body of Christ. The publication of such a poem was shocking, even in a magazine run by a group of human dung beetles intent on destroying Western civilisation, but far, far more shocking was the fact that the Gay Christian Movement [sic] not only opposed the prosecution of Gay News but made a collection for the paper’s fighting fund. (29) “The love that once dared not speak its name is now shouting it from the rooftops, blasphemy, necrophilia and all.” (30)

Returning to the gay liberation front manifesto, page 3 condemns the police for harassing “cottagers and cruisers” and for apprehending queer-bashers half-heartedly “after the event”. Cottaging is the practice of importuning for immoral purposes in public toilets. Cruising is self-explanatory. From this one can only assume that the organised homosexual movement is in favour of legalising sex acts between consenting adults in public toilets. Doubtless the general public has other ideas of what their ablutions should be used for. As for the comment about apprehending queer-bashers after the event, one can assume that this means they believe that all expressions of opposition to their pernicious poison should be nipped in the bud.

Organised Jewry and their fellow travellers have succeeded to a large extent in outlawing the dissemination of anti-Semitic propaganda - real and imagined. As a result of this the Jews are hated even more than they would be. (31) People who destroy our freedoms deserve to be hated, and if homosexuals succeed in pressurising the government to implement “anti-hate” legislation specifically for their benefit, doubtless the number of assaults on homosexuals by heterosexuals will escalate dramatically. The claim that the police investigate crimes of violence against homosexuals half-heartedly if at all is simply not true and is an insult to the British police. Furthermore, homosexual organisations have themselves often advocated non-cooperation with the police. Probably the most disgusting example of this was the case of London-based homosexual serial killer Michael Lupo. In July 1987, AIDS sufferer Lupo was jailed for life for murdering four people, three of them homosexuals. He was caught after one of his victims survived a strangulation attempt. At Lupo’s trial it was claimed that when David Cole contacted the so-called Gay Switchboard in connection with this incident he was advised not to inform the police, even though it was known that a homosexual serial killer was at large in the capital. (32)

Page 4 of the manifesto complains that homosexuals are murdered, robbed and beaten up. Heterosexuals aren’t, of course. Psychiatry is said to look on homosexuality as a disease. It’s certainly a social disease, one which only a sick mind would even consider, practising, but the real sickness of homosexuals is of the spirit. It’s not a disease in the classical sense because the acts of homosexuality: sodomy, anilingus, whatever, are voluntary.

Page 6 condemns the mythical disease of sexism which “oppresses” women. As male homosexuals have no interest in women this is pure class war rhetoric. Page 7 quotes an American psychiatrist Dr Fred Brown who says that Western civilisation is founded on the sanctity of the family, the right to property and the worthwhileness of “getting ahead”. The family can be established only through heterosexual intercourse and thus give women a high value. This is seen to be evil, and must be overturned: family, alleged male supremacy, and all: “We must aim at the abolition of the family...”

Such candidness is remarkable, both homosexuals and “feminists” exhibit an almost pathological hatred of the traditional family and family values. But if the family is to be abolished, what will take its place? Communes? Where every man shares every woman and every woman every man? And, presumably, where every man shares every man and every woman shares every woman. Homosexual activist Dennis Altman has written: “The willingness to have sex immediately, promiscuously, and with people about whom one knows nothing and from whom one demands only physical contact can be seen as a sort of Whitmanesque democracy, a desire to know and trust other men in a type of brotherhood.” (33)

This candid if shocking comment gives a remarkable insight into the homosexual psyche and may explain why so many of them find socialism (collectivism) so attractive. And, in spite of all their wailing and whining about the evils of fascism and how they allegedly suffered under the Hitler régime, there is good evidence that a certain type of homosexual finds fascist ideology more than a little appealing. Certainly the Hollywood sex shop image of Nazism: men in black uniforms, sadism, physical abuse, is something a great many homosexuals positively relish. The problem with collectivism though is that it is not idealism but dictatorship dressed up as idealism. Idealism is working for others; “altruism”, the appeal of collectivism, is actually working for the state. Idealism is giving, being kind, but altruism is being kind with other people’s money. In reality, this means your money. The appeal of collectivism is that we will all be working for each other; the reality is that you will be working for them.

This is a long way from brotherhood, in short, it is, again, dictatorship. But leaving aside any ideological considerations, would you really like to have sexual relations capriciously with any woman - or man - who comes along? And would you like your wife and children to do the same thing? If the advocates of gay liberation had their way, you would have no option.

On page 8, it is stated that “Only reactionaries and conservatives believe in the idea of ’natural man’.” This is the fallacy of poisoning the well. Only idiots believe in the theory of evolution. You step forward and identify yourself as the idiot in question.

As well as having some curious ideas about who and what is natural, the authors of this manifesto have some rather quaint ideas about biology: “...further advances are on the point of making it possible for women to be completely liberated from their biology by means of artificial wombs. Women need no longer by [sic] burdened with the production of children at [sic] their main task in life, and need be still less in the future.”

Most women will of course be totally unaware that bearing children is their main task in life. On page 10, they go further still when they liken the institution of marriage to legalised prostitution: “Monogamy is usually based on ownership - the woman sells her services to the man in return for security...”

Now you know what these degenerates and slime think of you, ladies; in their eyes you’re nothing but a bunch of despicable whores. And your husbands are your johns - to lapse into a forgivable Americanism. This will of course come as a great shock to most women; even in this modern, secular age, very many girls enjoy being wined and dined, and like men to open doors for them; most girls dream of a white wedding in church, or of the cultural equivalent: mosque, synagogue and so on. Forget that, it’s all window-dressing, the only reason you’re tying the knot is so your boyfriend can get sex without paying for it. And your daughter, she’ll be no better than you: you’re all whores, hookers, paid fucks.

Of course, they don’t use such language, but this is what they actually say, not simply what they imply or hint at. Lest it be forgotten, these are the people who find such appellations as faggot, bum boy, sodomite, or even homo, so insulting and degrading. (34) In keeping with the abolition of the institution of marriage, they advocate the setting up of gay communes, as mentioned earlier. To them, a man and woman sharing a home and their lives is an obscenity, while group sodomy is to be made the norm.

On page 11, the manifesto’s planks are spelt out in detail. They demand “that all discrimination against gay people [sic], male and female, by the law, by employers, and by society at large, should end.”

Equality before the law is one thing, violation of property rights is quite another. No reasonable person would demand that when homosexuals are robbed, assaulted or murdered that such crimes should be investigated with less enthusiasm than if they were perpetrated against a normal person. No reasonable person would suggest that homosexuals be refused emergency medical treatment, (35) or other life saving treatment. No reasonable person would suggest that homosexuals be prohibited from using public libraries or public parks and toilets, as long as it is for a respectable purpose. (36) But a reasonable person might and very likely would take objection to being told that he had to let a room or a specific percentage of rooms or other property to homosexuals by virtue of their perversion. A reasonable person might well and probably would take exception to being compelled to employ a homosexual or a specific percentage of homosexuals in his or her business. A restaurant owner might take exception to employing a known homosexual as a chef. Who wants to have their food prepared by vectors of disease? Who wants to eat a ham sandwich which was made by a man who last night may have had his hand up another man’s arse?

Homosexuals don’t just demand rights, they demand special privileges, privileges that destroy the rights of other people, of the individual, and the principle right of the individual is to discriminate. The verb to discriminate means simply to choose, and in a truly free society, individuals must be free to choose with whom they associate, whom they employ, with whom they work. This includes discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and certainly on the basis of sexual perversion. As Ayn Rand put it: “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority...” (37) And certainly a noisy, vociferous minority has no right to demand the destruction of the individual rights of the majority, in particular the exclusion of vice and perversion from their society.

It should be noted here that in spite of all their wailing and gnashing of teeth which accompanies any discrimination against homosexuals by normal people, homosexuals themselves are not averse to discriminating against “straights”. One American study found that: “Gay bars, pig parlors, and gay baths are owned and operated...expressly for the enjoyment of homosexuals. Not only unwelcome, heterosexuals are systematically discouraged from any patronage...the bartender may refuse to serve him or management may simply ask him or her to leave the premises.” And that in some cases, “the cashier will state outright that the bath is only for homosexuals”. (38)

Exactly why any decent human being would want to patronise one of these AIDS-ridden sewers of homosexual filth is not made clear, (39) nor should discrimination by homosexuals be any more reprehensible than against them, this point is made merely to illustrate the hypocrisy of the organised homosexual movement, and indeed, other “anti-discrimination” campaigners.

As well as an end to “discrimination”, the gay liberation front manifesto demands that “sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual.”

In other words, it’s time to stop learning about the birds and the bees and start learning about fisting. (40) And instead of being taught how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, your children are to be taught how to importune for immoral purposes in public toilets and to learn about “glory holes”, water sports and strangulation.

Page 12 reiterates the non-discrimination claim: “employers should no longer be allowed to discriminate against anyone on account of their sexual preferences.”

It is not clear if this is to extend to such horrendous practices as vetting nursery school teachers for convictions against children. Probably not, for in the gay dystopia of the future, there will be no sexual offences against children because the age of consent will be abolished. One must bear in mind that this manifesto was written before the advent of AIDS, and that discrimination against AIDS victims has long since been thrown into the pot. In the United States, the organised homosexual movement’s obsession with “discrimination” against their kind led them to interfere with the introduction of blood donor screening. This happened as long ago as 1983, at the beginning of the AIDS era, but after the connection was made with homosexual practices and the highly infection disease hepatitis B. (41) One author wrote that “Representatives from gay organizations...firmly opposed taking any action to screen blood donors, saying the screening would pose serious civil rights questions.” Needless to say, representatives of haemophiliacs’ - the major innocent victims of this terrible disease - saw things differently: “what about a hemophiliac’s right to life?” they asked. (42)

In the capital, Washington, homosexual militants intimidated Red Cross officials into excluding sexual orientation from a questionnaire for blood donors, while in New York, the National Gay Task Force [sic] rounded up virtually every homosexual leader in Manhattan to stand on the steps of the New York Blood Center where they denounced efforts to screen donors. (43)

This obsession with non-discrimination forces business people to make non-rational decisions which can affect both their livelihoods and other peoples’ lives. A health authority which employed a known homosexual as a surgeon and was denied the right to screen him for AIDS or hepatitis B on the grounds that this would interfere with his “civil rights” would be endangering the lives of patients. It would also be rendering itself liable to civil action for negligence from patients and patients’ next of kin.

Leaving aside such terrible considerations, all anti-discrimination legislation in the private sector amounts to a violation of the individual’s property rights. Of course, most homosexuals, and their fellow travellers, would rather there were no private sector, as we have already demonstrated, indeed, this is hardly a secret. Outside of homosexual organisations, the groups which make the most noise about gay “rights” are the Socialist Workers’ Party ad nauseum, whose hatred of free enterprise needs no reiterating here.

On page 12, the authors of this piece of subversive trash demand “that the age of consent for gay males be reduced to the same as for straight.” In other words, they want your children. It should be pointed out that many active homosexuals and many “radical” groups would like the age of consent to be abolished altogether. This is hardly out of concern for the “oppression” of children. Up until the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the age of consent for girls was 12. The age of consent for both sexes currently stands at sixteen; that doesn’t prevent younger girls, sometimes much younger, from becoming pregnant. Most young girls who do become pregnant do so by encounters with boys of more or less their own age. This is bad enough; even so, there are older men who prey on young girls. Likewise there are homosexuals who prey on boys; boys also need protecting. If the age of consent is lowered to sixteen, the inevitable result will be boys of twelve and thirteen being corrupted by militant homosexuals and middle aged perverts.

Libertarians generally favour lowering the age of consent for homosexuals to that of heterosexuals. One should not question their intentions, simply their judgment. The problem with Libertarians is that they are virtually all university graduates; most of them have never been “on the dole”, they are not “street-wise”, and they tend to judge everyone by their own high standards. Most also favour lowering the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent is like enfranchising an illiterate population, something we have seen rather too much of over the past few decades. And something which leads inevitably to chaos, as evinced by the terrible conditions which are endemic in many African countries, most of which were formerly stable, prosperous colonies under European “Imperialism”.

Lowering the age of consent for homosexuals will not result in chaos, but in disaster for our children. There are plenty of older people of loose morals who will happily lend themselves to homosexual corruption, as evinced by the endless pages of filth in homosexual magazines, which masquerade as classified ads. Homosexuals want your children; they’ve told you so in no uncertain terms.

Finally, and most chilling of all, the authors of this sick manifesto state clearly what they are going to do in order to secure what in their eyes are their rights: “We do not intend to ask for anything. We intend to stand firm and assert out basic rights. If this involves violence, it will not be we who initiate this, but those who attempt to stand in our way to freedom.”

We have already seen what they consider to be their basic rights: the right to indoctrinate your children with their poison and to mould them into prospective homosexuals; the right to abolish the family and replace it with gay communes where everyone will have sexual relations with everyone else regardless of sex, and age. The right to lower or even to abolish the age of consent so that your ten year old son can be corrupted by a pervert who will be able to claim in court that because the boy “looked sixteen” and nodded his head uncertainly when asked an obscure question, he consented to sexual relations. Militant homosexuals also demand the right to force you to employ them; the right to compel you to let your property to them. And if you do not concede them their “rights” they will use violence to secure them.

Although there have been no homosexual terrorist groups - as yet (44) - homosexuals have, as we have seen, sought to fulfil their perverted agenda in other ways. But that doesn’t mean that violence is entirely off the menu. Homosexuals have been extremely active in the misnamed anti-fascist movement, organisations such as the Anti-Nazi League, (45) which have not hesitated to use violence against Britain’s far right. The campaign against the mythical disease of racism has at times reached fever pitch. Whatever one may think of Britain’s “Nazis”, it is surely a sign of the depths to which the ethos of homosexual perversion has been stamped on the mind of Western Man that while “racial purity” is regarded as something sick and evil, at the same time the spiritual impurity and diseased institution of homosexuality has been elevated almost to a virtue.

But organised violence against “nationalists” and their fellow travellers is not the be-all and end-all of homosexual violence. They are by no means shy of resorting to violence in their own cause, exactly as stated in the 1979 manifesto. In the early nineties, a full-blooded campaign has been spearheaded to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to sixteen, supposedly to bring it in line with the heterosexual age of consent, as though sodomy were somehow comparable to normal sexual relations. The parliamentary campaign was led by Mrs Edwina Currie, one of our more sincere politicians. Mrs Currie caused a furore in December 1988 in the now infamous Chickengate scandal in which she elected to put the public interest before private profit by commenting unfavourably on the British egg industry. Her - in retrospect - rash, claims about salmonella in eggs, literally torpedoed sales, something from which to this day the British egg industry has not fully recovered.

In February 1994, MPs voted on lowering the age of consent for homosexuals to sixteen. An alternative to the motion was that the age of consent be lowered instead to eighteen, (it had been twenty-one since the Sexual Offences Act, 1967). MPs were not yet ready to go this far - and hopefully never will be - but they did vote for the age of consent to be lowered to eighteen. One would have thought that the organised homosexual movement would have been pleased at this partial victory for their poison. Not one bit. Thousands of them who had massed outside Parliament hurled abuse at MPs, including the sorely misguided Edwina Currie, (in serving the wicked expect no reward). (46) They shouted “Shame on you” and “Scum” at Members as they left the House. (47) OutRage head honcho Tatchell was reported to have said: “They have no respect for us, so we will have no respect for Parliament.” And threatened a major campaign of civil disobedience. (48) The civil disobedience had in fact already started: the Daily Telegraph reported “about ten arrests”. (49)

Tatchell did not explain why Members of Parliament, or anyone else for that matter, should respect people who live like dung beetles. Respect is something that has to be earned. Clearly such practices as sodomy, fellatio with strangers, and importuning for immoral purposes in public toilets, do little to attract anyone’s respect. The threat of serious public disorder by militant homosexuals, and even low level terrorism, remains a distinct possibility.

Whatever special pleading and sophistry they come out with, the ugly scenes outside the House of Commons, and the other tactics of the organised homosexual movement, shatter forever the illusion of homosexuals as an oppressed minority. If they ever were oppressed, much less tyrannised, the boot has long been on the other foot.

One other aspect of the phony gay “rights” campaign deserves a brief mention. The idea has recently been floated in government and local government circles that homosexuals should have the right to adopt children. On February 14th 1993, a BBC TV programme (Heart Of The Matter) announced that the previous month, Hampshire County Council had stated that it would in future consider homosexuals as prospective foster parents. The BBC has a long history of broadcasting subversive trash, but this programme was particularly insidious. It interviewed homosexuals, the (thankfully extremely unenthusiastic) Under Secretary of State for Health, Timothy Yeo, (50) and a number of children. The latter had quite clearly been schooled, as was evinced by the questions they asked. What does it matter if a foster parent is gay? That sort of thing.

We have seen what militant homosexuals think of children, and of families. This programme was both a kite flown for the benefit of the organised homosexual movement and a Trojan horse for the misnamed cause of gay rights.

To Conclusion
To Notes And References
Back To Cover And Acknowledgments

Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index