I came to be interested in this compelling and sobering topic by a route familiar to many in our society today — that of the “victim.” I did not seek this status, nor did I exploit or claim it, yet for many months I and others experienced what it was like to be on the receiving end of a full-scale, no-holds-barred “seek-and-destroy” campaign, orchestrated by “gay” political activists in the State of Oregon. The occasion of the uproar was a series of initiative campaigns aimed at preventing local and state-level legislation granting “minority status” based on homosexuality. The details of the initiatives and about the Oregon Citizens Alliance, the grassroots organization which sponsored them, would fill at least one book by themselves. But the long and the short of what led me to this book and its topic was the astonishing tone of the rhetoric which is routinely leveled by the defenders of “gay rights” at people who publicly oppose homosexuality. Amidst this rhetoric, the favorite names and metaphors were nearly all drawn from Hitler’s Germany. Leaders and even petition-carriers on our campaign were characterized as every kind of Nazi, fascist, racist, hate-monger and Aryan supremacist. Bricks wrapped in swastika-emblazoned paper were hurled through the windows of businesses who had contributed to our campaign. Always, the Nazi rhetoric was loudest and most extreme among the homosexual activists and their closest political allies (Governor Barbara Roberts, a long-time homosexualist, characterized the ballot measure as “almost like Nazi Germany” (The Oregonian, August 26, 1992:A14)). Some of the worst abuse came from homosexualists in the media. During the 1992 election cycle, I was contacted by an assistant producer for the CBS news-magazine show “48 Hours,” who wanted permission to feature OCA in a segment about “how mainstream Americans were responding to extremism in the gay-rights movement.” Being familiar with media bias on the issue of homosexuality, I was very suspicious and insisted on personal assurance from the producer that this was indeed the focus of the program. Due to the tone of rhetoric in the local media I specifically demanded and received a promise that OCA would not be characterized as a hate group. Only after repeated assurances over a two or three week period of telephone negotiations did I seek and obtain permission for this project from OCA’s chairman, Lon Mabon. I then devoted nearly two weeks of my time assisting the “48 Hours” film crew, facilitating dozens of hours of interviews and arranging camera locations for filming campaign activities. The program aired on February 26, 1992. In the late afternoon I received a call from a friend in Massachusetts, where the program had just aired three hours ahead of our West Coast television programming schedule. “Watch out,” she said, “they stabbed you in the back.” Sure enough, the program was called “48 Hours on Hate Street” and featured a rogue’s gallery of hate groups, including neo-Nazis and violent white supremacists. The segment on OCA was sandwiched between two such groups. In the local news program following “48 Hours,” KOIN, the CBS affiliate in Portland, juxtaposed a report about OCA and a piece which included classic Nazi file footage and anti-Nazi polemics. Approximately two weeks later another television station in Eugene, KEZI-TV, included Nazi file footage in a news story about OCA (they later apologized). Newspapers across the state frequently editorialized against OCA, using the terms “Nazi,” “KKK,” “bigot,” and “hate” liberally. I had known for a long time that it is axiomatic that when name-calling (as opposed to reasonable debate) happens, the names one calls others usually reflect the things one dislikes about oneself. I think it occurred to me that there was something awfully overstated about the Nazi-labeling campaign, even before I received a set of carefully-documented notes on prominent homosexuals in the Nazi Party, sent by a person who had followed the firestorm of rhetoric brought on by our campaign. In the years since I began augmenting and refining this first set of data, the nation has seen the trivialization of such extreme rhetoric. It is commonplace days to hear someone being called, directly or by inference, a “Nazi.” Some people have attributed this to the impoverishment of our national discourse, the depletion of our language and powers of intellect, and I would agree. We are certainly losing our literacy, and much of our dignity along with it. Yet there remains the old and valid notion that those who repeatedly, loudly and unreasonably call others a name are often, consciously or not, describing themselves. Though this book is limited to the examination of connections between the Nazi movement and the homosexual and occultist movements, I think that a larger and more chilling theme can be read in its pages. Can it be that the fascination with calling people Nazis is, for the modern “gay” movement and others in our society, an outgrowth of a deeper fascination with what the Nazis got away with in their own state? What are the attitudes that underlie the phenomena of the “nanny state,” “political correctness,” the cynical political promotion of racial and class strife, “dumbing down” the public, the attenuation of parental rights, sterilizing the public environment of Judeo-Christian religious references, and the increasing homogeneity of opinion and of news “slant” in the press? In a way, I think that American homosexual activists present an almost refreshingly honest view into the nature of these attitudes, compared to the sanctimonious presentations we hear daily from the press and certain special interest groups and political leaders. Let us look for a moment at one of the more bald-faced revelations of the homosexualist’s view of, and goals for, American society. In a point-by-point public relations strategy called “The Overhauling of Straight America,” (Guide Magazine, November, 1987) homosexuals Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill explain their modern makeover of Hitler’s “Big Lie.” This remarkable piece is a control freak’s fantasy, a veritable binge of manipulative, coercive and deceptive words and tactics. It begins:
The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays...To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream... (Kirk and Pill:7).
This behavior-modification mentality, combined with isolation of “straights” and others as groups or classes who assume the status of de-humanized targets of one sort or another, continues:
the masses [emphasis ours] should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself...the imagery of sex should be downplayed...(ibid.:8).
...open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed (ibid.:8).
...gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector (ibid.:8).
...make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard...(ibid.:8).
...replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt (ibid.:10).
Not so many years ago, all of these statements would have been unbelievably offensive to most Americans, even if they contained no reference to homosexuality, precisely because they all advocate coercive tampering with people’s most private domain, their thoughts, opinions and beliefs (Kirk and Pill call it “transforming the social values of straight America” — ibid.:14). Such attempts were thought to be the province of diabolical masterminds in sci-fi novels, or of Maoists or the dictators of banana republics. But we have arrived at a time in America in which Kirk and Pill simply add their voices (and the tone of their voices) to the many advocating the forcible or manipulative control of people’s ideas (for example, “speech codes” on college campuses and in newspaper classified advertising policy). The more of Nazi thinking I have researched, the more I have been reminded that our nation represents the first and greatest successful experiment in the opposite direction. At our founding we were the only nation, among many autocratically-governed states, which truly offered and guaranteed freedom of thought and expression. Our founding fathers attempted to write our inestimably precious freedoms in stone because they foresaw (indeed, it was going on even then) that there would be an incessant drift back to the power-in-the-hands-of-a-few school of thought. How far have we drifted today, and what does this mean for the behavioral fringe groups of our society (just as the Nazis were a behavioral fringe group of theirs), who feel compelled to re-shape American hearts and minds to resemble their own? Let us return to Kirk and Pill to look at the mechanics of their strategy for “transforming” the society into what they feel would be a more acceptable form. Here are some of their suggestions:
Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible...almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it...(Kirk and Pill:7).
Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject (ibid.:8).
...the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know - this trick is so old it creaks (ibid.:9).
...it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified (ibid.:10).
...we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types (ibid.:10).
Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment, each message will drill a seemingly agreeable proposition into mainstream heads (ibid.:11).
The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America...the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern [sic] ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs and convicts...Nazi concentration camps...(ibid.:10).
These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists [emphasis ours] call the “bracket technique.” For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen, pounding the pulpit in rage about “those sick, abominable creatures.” While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of badly beaten persons, or to photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth...The effect is devastating (ibid.:13-14).
A group called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) used this technique in an advertising campaign in the fall of 1995 against Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell. As reported in the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, November 12, 1995, “...a new television ad campaign [portrays scenes of] a teenage girl contemplating suicide with a handgun, [and] a young man being beaten by a gang as his attackers shout slurs...interspersed with actual clips of the Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservatives deploring homosexuality.” Most stations turned down the ads, but they ran in Tulsa and Washington D.C. A print version of the ad (much less emotionally effective) was run in USA Today, November 21, 1995. Interestingly, Pat Robertson's comments quoted in the ad were directly related to the subject of this book: “Homosexuality is an abomination. Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together.” Without belaboring the point, these soi-disant propagandistic tactics, and even the verbiage in which they are couched, represent a twisted approach to the winning of American public opinion. Again, I was struck by the similarity (in deceptive tactics and puppeteer-like attitude) to the creators of the Nazi propaganda machine. Not only is there the classic Big Lie technique (say it “loudly and as often as possible”), but the homosexualists have elevated the old Nazi technique of vilification, used on the Jews by such adepts as pornographer Julius Streicher, to an art form. And the familiar Hitlerian emotional component of hatred is certainly there, as Kirk and Pill salivate over the imagined discomfiture of their “most fervid enemies” (apparently, pastors who have the misfortune to live in the South!):
The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching (ibid.:10).
Two of the first and major commitments of the Nazis in their rise to power were the effective control of the information sources in Germany, and the careful building of a propaganda machine. This was the key to their power, and except for a strong military force, it is the most important enhancement to any autocratic power. Over the last two decades we have witnessed an appalling willingness among the American news and entertainment media to align themselves with one element of political thought, to allow themselves to be channels for the dissemination of one side of an issue over another. As new and contradictory voices (talk radio) have appeared on the media scene, they have actually been opposed by the existing media commentators. And in much of the entertainment media’s program fare we find a not-so-subtle enactment of Kirk’s and Pill’s strategy (albeit on a number of issues, not just homosexuality). Indeed, Kirk and Pill assert that “gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream” (Kirk and Pill:8). These are some of the issues to be broached in a study of the relationship of homosexuals and their political movements to the Nazi Party. The larger context of the study must be our own country, and the numerous groups who are now struggling to capture its soul and “transform” its society. How are we similar, and dissimilar, to the Germans of the 1920s and 30s? What lessons should we learn? As a final note, the other inspiration of this book has been the recent claim of homosexualists that homosexuals were major victims of the Holocaust (this seems to be part of the “victim” strategy in Kirk’s and Pill’s design). The play Bent has been the springboard for a campaign, complete with homosexual add-ons to an Anne Frank exhibit which toured the U.S., to get the public to accept the idea that homosexuals were the most downtrodden and persecuted group in Nazi Germany. In this play, a homosexual prisoner “trades up” his pink badge for a yellow Jewish star to improve his status in the camp (S. Katz:145). This turn of events in the homosexualist propaganda campaign has been a sore affront to traditionalist Jews like my friend and co-author Kevin Abrams, who desires to protect the truth of history from the “Holocaust revisionists.” It is to that truth, a signpost on the path of every free society, that we have dedicated this book.
A Word to the Reader
Two terms used frequently in this book, “homosexualist” and “pederast,” will be unfamiliar to many readers. We use the term homosexualist to refer to any person, homosexual or not, who actively promotes homosexuality as morally and socially equivalent to heterosexuality as a basis for social policy. In our view Harry Hay, founder of the American “gay-rights” movement, and President Bill Clinton, who attempted to force the U.S. military to accept open homosexuals, are both homosexualists. Each has worked in his own way to legitimize homosexual behavior in America. Many heterosexual people are homosexualists. Many self-described homosexual people are not homosexualists. A homosexualist is defined by his actions in a sociopolitical context. This differs from Samuel Igra’s use of the term in Germany’s National Vice, which we have quoted extensively. Igra uses “homosexualist” to define sexual conduct only. A pederast is defined as a physically mature man who engages in or desires to engage in sex with boys around the age of puberty, as opposed to a pedophile, who targets both male and female prepubescent children and/or pubertal girls. (Pederast derives from the Greek paed, meaning boy, and erastis, meaning lover). Self-defined “boy-lovers” who have formed “children’s rights” organizations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in this country, and who formed the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen in Germany, generally seem to focus their sexual attention on boys roughly between the ages of 8 and 18 years, with an apparent preference for boys about 12 years old. Some sources quoted in this study use the terms “pederast” and “pedophile” interchangeably. We hope to reestablish the distinction between these terms (dubious as it may be) to facilitate a deeper understanding of homosexual ideology and the varieties of its expression. English translation of German words using the umlaut (two dots above the vowel) result in different spellings of words like Fuehrer and Roehm (Fuhrer and Rohm). In this book we have chosen the form of spelling in which the vowel is followed by an “e.” Spelling of German words varies among the authors we quote but we have taken the liberty of harmonizing the spelling in this book.