Appendix . . . Following is an edited version of a paper that was written in 2011 and which has been circulated repeatedly since that time. Some editing was advisable since the original paper included lengthy documents that have been discussed in the text of When the truth is found to be lies... and no good purpose would be served with duplication. . Copies were sent to everyone whom I could think of who might derive benefit from the contents. Almost all were Americans, mostly professional people, academics, clergy, and journalists. But one exception of note should be mentioned, correspondence duplicated here from about two years ago. The e-mail says in part- . "Consulate of Russia: The following research paper about homosexuality, while it was written for American readers well before current Russian policy became topical in the United States, is directly relevant to the issue. . In so many words, the article agrees with the substance of Russian policy and is diametrically opposed to current White House policy.
. I am 100% American but also 100% opposed to official American policy concerning homosexuality. . This is a scholarly paper; it is not a "quick read." However, if you actually examine the material it should be obvious that there are important arguments that can be made on behalf of Russian policy that so far have never been expressed." . . Hopefully it will soon become possible to send the Russian consulate an entire book, and the consulates of approximately 25 other countries. . . The main purpose of the essay is to make the point that not only is it illegitimate to use the word "homophobia," it is possible and a good thing to do, to hurl the charge of "heterophobia" in the faces of the perverted or fellow travelers of the perverted and put them on the defensive. . I do not plan to be "nice" in my public criticisms of homosexuals. The moment there is a forum in which I am free to express my honest opinions, and not need to defer to anyone who is less informed than I am, which means just about everyone, the public will hear precisely what my opinion of homosexuals actually is. . ---------------------- The Word "HOMOPHOBIA" Those who use the word "homophobia" have an agenda they wish to impose on others. First and foremost such people express the view that any criticism of homosexuality should not be tolerated. This applies to everyone, no matter how well-informed. Since a good number of critics of homosexuality are, in fact, well-informed, they are routinely mischaracterized as uniformed through the well known psychological defense mechanism known as "denial." That is, all is fair to people who use the word "homophobia" as part of their vocabulary. And nothing will stop them from seeking to impose censorship on society -in the name of Civil Rights and free speech. This has been true from the time that the word was first coined in about 1967. As noted in Byrne Fone's 2001 book on the subject of homosexual history, Homophobia, the first known use of the word took place in a 1971 article written by K.T. Smith. Possibly Smith borrowed the term from then-new usage among at least some homosexuals. One homosexual author claims he invented the term which was then borrowed by others. In any case, the word was first popularized to the general public by George Weinberg in his own 1972 opus, Society and the Healthy Homosexual, and it was from this source that the word became an influence throughout the United States. However, as Fone does not tell us, Weinberg expressed an agenda in his 1972 volume, namely, that it was in the interests of homosexuals to make the most of the neologism in order to discredit all critics of homosexuality as the equivalent of so many racists and anti-Semites. For the most part this strategy has been successful, along the way deceiving a multitude of people who ordinarily would be expected to know better than to be duped, many journalists, elected officials, professionals, even numbers of clergymen and women. What Fone also does not say is that the word "homophobia" is now widely equated with prejudice, sexism, and other social maladies. This was exactly the plan of Weinberg in 1972. The current situation did not exactly come about overnight, you know. That was hardly the case. . It wasn't until the 1980s that anything like a substantial minority of Americans were using the word as a commonplace. But by the first years of the Clinton administration Weinberg had his semantic victory. By then perhaps a majority of Americans had been hoodwinked. The capitulation of the New York Times, which became an organ of homosexual advocacy in 1993, was the turning point. The illegitimacy of the term "homophobia" should be obvious. But, since relatively few people in our society are actually informed about the subject of homosexuality, this fact goes unrecognized. Still, it ought to be clear enough that something is very wrong when current usage of "homophobia" would require us to brand Anna Freud, Karen Horney ( pronounced Hor-nay ), Irving Bieber, Abram Kardiner, Abraham Maslow (at least until late in his life), Sandor Rado, Erich Fromm, and even Sigmund Freud in his classic, Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, as "homophobic." These were among the men and women, all recognized as 'greats' in the history of psychology, who did the most in their careers to bring about clinical understanding of same-sex behavior and personality. As well, use of the term "homophobia" requires people to ascribe psychological disorder to people whose ideas and examples have made us who we are today as Americans. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote Virginia law which considered sodomy (the word, at the time, that referred to homosexuality ) as utterly reprehensible and to be classified as a capital offense. Then there was George Washington. He was the commanding officer at Valley Forge when the first American soldier was drummed out of the military -publicly humiliated and disgraced for life- for homosexual conduct. But this is only the start of an extremely long list of heroic figures who took the view that homosexuality was a grievous crime against nature, not only including philosophers like perhaps the greatest genius who ever lived, Immanuel Kant, like St Thomas Aquinas, like reformer Martin Luther, plus Martin Luther King, Jr., but including virtually all of the founders of the great religions on Earth. One would have thought that informed citizens would have thought twice before allowing themselves to be led down a garden path, but that is exactly what happened. It took about 25 years but in that time the wisdom and hard won values of millennia were thrown out in much of our culture -in order to appease homosexuals. This entire farce was presented to the public as "enlightened" opinion, as a bandwagon to jump upon in order not to be left behind in society, in order to claim status in institutions like universities, government agencies, leading edge businesses, and all the rest. In any case, use of the word "homophobia" is uncritical and begs all sorts of very important questions. For example, why isn't it perfectly normal to have strong aversion to a form of conduct that is disruptive to families, that is closely associated with child molesting, --with pedophilia-- that is damaging to homosexuals themselves, not even to also count close association of homosexuality with alcoholism, drug abuse, sadism and masochism, fetishism, extremely high levels of homosexual vs homosexual violence, and a wide range of virulent diseases, and suicide ? But they wear suits and ties, or pretty dresses, and seem like such nice people ? They may also wear leather pants with the rears cut out to allow better "access," they may prefer to dress in circus costumes, or wear Nazi regalia, and pierce their noses or tongues or scrotums or nipples. All of which is not quite beside the point. . Clinically --whether the subject is extreme personality disorder, psychopathology, or medical problems at rates ridiculously far in excess of problems among the heterosexual population, the fact is that homosexuals are sick people. Furthermore, those who use the term "homophobia" are guilty of gross stereotyping. Which can be seen in the pages of Mr. Fone's book , for example, telling us that all critics of homosexuality are Right-wingers, uneducated, religious bigots, and so forth -including Ph.Ds, science writers, and educators with impeccable credentials. . And the question might be asked: Since when is it exemplary free speech to insult everyone who may have objectively good reasons to for objecting to homosexuality? How about parents of children molested by Catholic pedophile priests? How about parents of young boys molested by a famous football coach ? And such examples could be multiplied at length with little difficulty. Don't parents with young children count ? Yet when people openly oppose homosexuals what happens ? Since I have seen it with my own eyes, and have read a good number of first person accounts, I can tell you exactly what happens. Critics of homosexuals are shouted down, are ostracized (and sometimes black-listed), are de facto censored from the press or broadcast media, and so forth. This is precisely what happens in our communities, courtesy of homosexuals and their supporters. The real problem is not a mythical "homophobia," it is clinical heterophobia on the part of homosexuals. This was pointed out to best effect, so far, in an article by Claude Crepault that was published in the Summer 1995 issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. The problem, said Crepault, isn't a non-existent phobia known as "homophobia," a word that is carelessly used to refer to everything from reasonable criticism to jokes that homosexuals do not like. The actual problem is clinical heterophobia on the part of homosexuals. After all, it is as clear as anything can get that heterosexual sex is natural ; indeed, it is necessary for the survival of our species. Which is to say that sustained aversion to sexual relations with the opposite sex is pathological. The word "homophobia" does not say anything meaningful about people who are critical of homosexuals. What it does is to define those who use the term as being part of a social group, namely, any individuals who follow a pro-homosexual party line, who have internalized Political Correctness ideology, and who mask their real sentiments, which are virtually fascist in character, behind Civil Rights rhetoric. The word "homophobia" is a smear word. It is an insult spoken against anyone who dares to point out the obvious, that homosexuals are defective psychologically, and it shows. Those who use the word "homophobia" are also, for the most part, terribly ignorant of the most basic facts about homosexual behavior and usually are completely clueless about the many medical and psychological problems which accompany homosexuality. They compensate for their ignorance by insulting those they disagree with, and refusal to even listen to what critics of homosexuality actually say. Worse, homosexuals who dislike criticisms sometimes show their displeasure through overt hostility, including disruptive invasions of churches. We have every right to demand that all people in positions of authority, and this includes Congressmen and women, cease and desist in all use of the term "homophobia." Using the word demonstrates prejudice against normal people -without the least justification. Homosexuals are individuals who suffer from a grievous psychological disorder directly linked to clinical depression, anxiety disorders of various kinds, behavioral pathologies of different kinds (exhibitionism, anti-social personality disorder, bulimia, susceptibility to addictions if many kinds, et. al.) and general social dysfunction. This is due to their choice of a "lifestyle" that is intrinsically unhealthy and needlessly dangerous. And choice it is, even if, among long term homosexuals, there is less and less control over decisions. But there is zero empirical evidence that there is any such thing as a gene that predisposed anyone to homosexuality and all ( all ) so-called studies of the past that seemed to indicate biological determinism have been disproven. Which is the truth even though the mass media refuses, on principle, to tell the public. . And now homosexuals are seeking to normalize their pathology in American society at large -and the Courts are assisting them in this travesty. All of this is completely unacceptable. We should not grant even one argument to homosexuals, to mentally sick people, because what they need, desperately, is intensive psychological care with the objective of eliminating their pathology. That such curative processes are effective was demonstrated years ago by no less than Masters and Johnson, sex researchers whom no-one can conceivably characterize as Right-wing zealots. Their 1979 book, Homosexuality in Perspective makes this very clear. But there are a good number of excellent studies of homosexuality that make its pathological nature completely obvious. The three best books to recommend are : Dr. Charles Socarides : Homosexuality : A Freedom Too Far, 1995 --a psychiatrist and in his lifetime the leading expert in the area of homosexual psychopathology, someone who exposed the APA, the American Psychiatric Association, for what it has become, a sub-professional organization under control of homosexual interests, Judith Reisman : Sexual Sabotage, 2010 -best known for her work in exposing Kinsey as a fraud and pedophile who deceived multitudes, which the press allowed him to get away with long after these facts were established beyond all doubt, and O.R. Adams : As We Sodomize America, 2001 -which is told from the perspective of a Christian believer but a practicing attorney and conscientious researcher. In so many words there is no excuse for continuing to put up with homosexual propaganda, to put up with the special pleading of pro-homosexuals in the news media, with the half-baked utterances of uninformed elected officials, or even with the hopelessly muddled and misguided views of clergy who have pro-homosexual agendas. It really does not matter if you know a homosexual and think of him or her as a friend, it does not matter if someone in your family, a cousin or uncle or anything else, is homosexual, either. Homosexuality is a disorder with the gravest conceivable negative consequences -for everyone. Face the facts, and face up to your responsibilities. There is no other way to deal with the problem ; compromise or denial accomplishes nothing and can easily make matters worse. The time is long past due when people of good will need to act to reclaim American society from others who simply do not care how much damage they have done to our institutions, to our culture, and to families and to children, all because homosexuals are the kinds of specimens of dysfunction that they are. And it is time to identify homosexuality for what it is, clinical heterophobia, a full blown mental illness. We should act accordingly. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
