Tweet
Dr.Scott Lively, Pastor and President, Defend the Family International has just published this warning on Defend The Family website in an article attempting to stop the repeal of the ''Don't Ask. Don't Tell'' policy in the military. Pastor Lively used these arguments to defend his position.
Pastor Lively proposes to deliver a copy of his book ''The Pink Swastika''to every member of the Senate. He is presently looking for funding to pay for these books, $25 a copy and he will the personally deliver the copies.NOTE:pdf copies available for download on the interweb. The book describes how the Nazi party was inindated with homersexuals, including Hitler himself, and any possible atrocities against gays reported were actually cover ups to hide the rampant gayness of the Nazi elite.
Pastor Lively might be remembered as one of the 3 guests invited to sit on a panel in Uganda that imposed Biblical Punishment for Gayness. It is punishable by death.
I believe the Pastor has raised some very convincing points that he backs up with historical fact, and should be supported by all True Christians™out there.
The following is a revision of Dr. Lively’s essay for Accuracy in Media of February 2, 2009, titled The Nazi Model for “Gays” in the Military.
Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions.
First, there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military, leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for deep and widespread moral and morale problems.
Then there’s the likelihood of physical conflict among the troops. Will proud young men being honed to become weapons of aggression against America’s enemies tolerate being ogled in the showers or touched inappropriately or bunking near sexually-active “gays“? Undoubtedly blood will spill over such (inevitable) indignities.
But what will be the political consequence? Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?
A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason the anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.
Of course, no amount of “sensitivity training” will change the fundamental nature of young men and so it is likely that some form of segregated service would eventually be proposed. (We’ve seen this trend begin to arise in public education, where all-“gay” schools are the latest development.) This would be the biggest mistake of all, raising the specter (over time) of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
“Many of the [S.A.‘s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts,” wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate “gays“], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes super masculine homosexuals. They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate. Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it.”
Masculine-oriented male homosexuality tends also to be pederastic in nature, meaning that it often involves relationships between adult men and teenage boys. The ancient Spartan army, for example, drafted young teen boys and paired them with adult homosexual soldiers. Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
The scenario I see unfolding if we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an initial period of turmoil in which members of the services would attempt to show their opposition through the limited means available to them. This would result in a clamp-down by military authorities in an effort to force acceptance, accompanied by a sensitivity-training regimen. One or more incidents of violence against homosexuals, real or staged by the “gays” themselves, would ensure prioritization of the politically-correct policies, and justify pro-homosexual “affirmative action.”
Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.
Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted“) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power? The historical precedents are uniformly bad.
Lastly, and perhaps most serious is the loss of our moral authority around the world, especially in the Moslem countries. Until now, we have relied upon the partnership of moderate Moslems in our campaign to marginalize the extremists who already call us The Great Satan for our moral ambiguities. Yet how quickly will we lose the popular support of these people and governments when they know that the soldiers we are sending for “nation-building” on Moslem soil are overt, practicing homosexuals? We are handing the extremists an entirely new and powerful recruiting tool, and undermining the goodwill of every socially conservative nation on the planet, culminating in a net increase of danger for our troops and decrease of respect for our way of life.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an enlightened compromise when it was first conceived, and has proved to be a successful policy for our military. If anything, we should be expanding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into civilian life, rather than imposing the “sexual libertinism” of our corrupt civilian culture on the military. If, God forbid, we take that radical step, the consequences of its repeal will be severe.
Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions.
First, there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military, leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for deep and widespread moral and morale problems.
Then there’s the likelihood of physical conflict among the troops. Will proud young men being honed to become weapons of aggression against America’s enemies tolerate being ogled in the showers or touched inappropriately or bunking near sexually-active “gays“? Undoubtedly blood will spill over such (inevitable) indignities.
But what will be the political consequence? Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?
A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason the anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.
Of course, no amount of “sensitivity training” will change the fundamental nature of young men and so it is likely that some form of segregated service would eventually be proposed. (We’ve seen this trend begin to arise in public education, where all-“gay” schools are the latest development.) This would be the biggest mistake of all, raising the specter (over time) of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
“Many of the [S.A.‘s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts,” wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate “gays“], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes super masculine homosexuals. They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate. Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it.”
Masculine-oriented male homosexuality tends also to be pederastic in nature, meaning that it often involves relationships between adult men and teenage boys. The ancient Spartan army, for example, drafted young teen boys and paired them with adult homosexual soldiers. Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
The scenario I see unfolding if we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an initial period of turmoil in which members of the services would attempt to show their opposition through the limited means available to them. This would result in a clamp-down by military authorities in an effort to force acceptance, accompanied by a sensitivity-training regimen. One or more incidents of violence against homosexuals, real or staged by the “gays” themselves, would ensure prioritization of the politically-correct policies, and justify pro-homosexual “affirmative action.”
Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.
Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted“) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power? The historical precedents are uniformly bad.
Lastly, and perhaps most serious is the loss of our moral authority around the world, especially in the Moslem countries. Until now, we have relied upon the partnership of moderate Moslems in our campaign to marginalize the extremists who already call us The Great Satan for our moral ambiguities. Yet how quickly will we lose the popular support of these people and governments when they know that the soldiers we are sending for “nation-building” on Moslem soil are overt, practicing homosexuals? We are handing the extremists an entirely new and powerful recruiting tool, and undermining the goodwill of every socially conservative nation on the planet, culminating in a net increase of danger for our troops and decrease of respect for our way of life.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an enlightened compromise when it was first conceived, and has proved to be a successful policy for our military. If anything, we should be expanding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into civilian life, rather than imposing the “sexual libertinism” of our corrupt civilian culture on the military. If, God forbid, we take that radical step, the consequences of its repeal will be severe.
Pastor Lively might be remembered as one of the 3 guests invited to sit on a panel in Uganda that imposed Biblical Punishment for Gayness. It is punishable by death.
Exodus International board member Don Schmierer would join Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively and ex-gay “counselor” Caleb Brundidge in a three-day anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda.
.gif "Gunsmilie(1)")
Comment