Normalizing Pedophilia, the Advance of the Homosexual Agenda, and the Promotion of Pornography

The following is a chapter from my last book, “Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest.” My new book, “Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Persuasion and Conditioning” is moving along and should be available soon.

Most Americans would agree that the life of a child is precious and worthy of extra protection through rule of law. Stories of violent abuse against children tend to conjure up rage for many of us as we struggle to understand the complexities involved that drive, someone, to commit violent acts against a helpless child. Whether it is neglectful parenting that may lead to death or serious injury, or it is a willful attempt to batter, child abuse could be one of the nation’s biggest stigmas. As disturbing as these incidents are there is another form of abuse we are familiar with that is likely to do nothing less than leave a gaping hole in the hearts of those who experience any aspect of it, child sexual abuse. This can range from all-out sexual intercourse with a child, to fondling, making sexual comments, or exposing them to explicit sexual acts such as making them watch pornography. The thoughts of children having to experience this type of abuse whether it is from a relative or a stranger are appalling to most of us and are likely to have our stomachs twisting in knots. Unfortunately, there is not an easy explanation for child sexual abuse and there are even those who advocate for the right to freely engage in sexual activity with children. These groups believe that age of consent laws should be repealed and that young boys should be free to engage in sex with men because it is somehow beneficial to them. They are attempting to normalize the issue of pedophilia in much the same way homosexual marriage was normalized. Through incremental efforts to gain acceptance through public opinion and using the education system to push it on our children.


Gerald Hannon [1] is an individual heavily involved in turning the issue of “age of consent” into a human rights struggle and has expressed some interesting ideas of how to bring the issue to children in public schools. In fact, Hannon can be quoted as saying that there are not enough children involved in the homosexual movement, and attracting young people to it should be the movement’s next big challenge.


“At present, we do not have organizations that are chock-a-block full of young people…To attract young people to the gay movement in large numbers should be the challenge to the next phase of the movement. It is a challenge we have set ourselves.” (Hannon)


This should be concerning to all of us. Once again, a person genuinely concluding that they are gay is different than being pushed into exploring the possibility. Many activists argue that bringing awareness of homosexuality to our schools is necessary to alleviate the discrimination faced by homosexual students. One of Hannon’s ideas is to discredit the family and suggest that parents of children who are questioning their sexuality are nothing but a nuisance, old people trying to push their outdated values.  He goes onto say that children’s notions of heterosexuality, which they must obey at home, should be presented as otherworldly or out of place and that adult mentors should guide young children into the belief that the traditional morality of their parents is wrong, and should be rejected. It should be noted at this point that the encouraging and promotion of homosexuality and other degenerate behavior is listed as one of the forty-five goals of the communist party [2] to destroy America’s morality.


  1. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  2. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce
  3.  Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.


The plan to push homosexuality onto our children went full speed ahead in Massachusetts in the year 2000 when Kevin Jennings, president of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network formulated a plan to bring it into our education system. Jennings knew that he couldn’t teach our kids the idea of homosexuality without a fight from the right, so he introduced it under the guise of AIDS education as well as presenting it as a human rights issue. Jennings was instrumental in formulating the argument that homosexual kids could likely suffer from discrimination and harassment. Homosexual education was being presented as a means of bringing awareness to the situation. They presented homophobia as a threat to the safety of children struggling with their sexual identity. (Sheldon, n.d.) In fact, he cited the rates of suicide among homosexual youth, due to harassment as a big issue.


The truth about suicide among homosexual students is quite different than what statistics may suggest,  the numbers have been greatly exaggerated. In a paper by Paul Gibson entitled “Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide [3]” the numbers have been suggested to be as high as 3000 for the year 1985, for example. According to Sheldon [4], that number was debunked by a psychiatrist at Columbia University who found that the total number of suicides for teens, in general, was only 2000 during that year, so the number was made up to present homosexuals as victims. Even the head of the National Lesbian and Gay Health Organization does not recognize the research cited by Gibson because she admits that the connection between teen suicides and homosexuality remain unknown. (Sheldon) While it is true that some teens of a homosexual orientation commit suicide, it appears it is not because of harassment but because of sexual confusion resulting from “self-identified” homosexuality too early in their development. (Sheldon) Dr. Gary Remafedi[5] of The University of Minnesota, has discovered that there is an inherent danger in children self-identifying as homosexual too early. He claims there are several contributing factors that lead to suicide among homosexual teens, two of which are gender non-conformity and early childhood sexual experience. He concludes by saying that teens that are turned on to homosexuality at an early age end up with the belief that they are born that way and it becomes increasingly different to change their behavior. According to Remafadi, the internal conflicts these teens face as they explore homosexuality without being ready to explore sexuality at all, are the real reason gay teens commit suicide. Given this information, you must wonder why they are pushing this agenda at all? The answer of course is that they are working incessantly to change our society and turn our values upside down.


The attempts to bring homosexuality into the classroom are becoming more brazen as children as young as four years old are now being encouraged to engage in sexual play with one another and even watch pornography.[6] A High School in Pennsylvania[7] is under fire for allowing the infamous GLSEN to show videos of a homosexual nature to students without the consent of the parents. In fact, the school is denying the parents’ request to see these videos under the guise that they are a part of a student project. The push is on, harder than ever before, to normalize deviant sexual behavior to corrupt our youth. Unfortunately, the movement is attracting the sickest among them, those that believe that pedophilia should be a human right or a normal sexual orientation.


As the homosexual rights movement continues to gain ground, we hear increasingly about the normalization of pedophilia in our culture.  Researchers[8] are now claiming that it is normal for men to feel a sexual attraction to young, pre-pubescent children. Pedophiles are actively seeking to lower the age of consent laws when it comes to lawful sexual behavior with another. They claim that sex with children is not only a natural desire felt by adult males, but that in many cases, the children affected may benefit from it as opposed to experiencing harm. Many gay rights activists also push the idea that child sexual abuse committed against young boys is not a homosexual problem, but one of heterosexual males instead. This is a sick, twisted agenda being pushed under the guise of a human rights campaign backed up by fallacious research supporting the desires of sodomites.  If not stopped, this could have dire consequences for the future of humanity.


It has long been understood that children who have suffered from child sexual abuse were likely to experience severe trauma from the event. Researchers have long concluded that feelings of sexual confusion, worthlessness, depression, and suicidal thoughts were associated with sexual abuse. In many cases, even post-traumatic stress disorder has been thought to be a consequence. The rates for reported mental health issues, according to a report published[9] in the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, are higher for people who self-report for child sexual abuse. The rates are higher for women, 56% as opposed to 47% for men. The rates for mental health issues among those with no history of child sexual abuse are significantly lower, 32% for women and 34% for men. This report also finds that boys will most likely experience a fifteen-fold increase in suicidal tendencies as opposed to those who have not experienced sexual abuse while girls have a threefold increase for suicidal behavior. This is generally after introducing treatments for depression and other symptoms. Based on these findings, and what has generally been known about child sexual abuse, children suffer greatly when abused by adults. This is the reason pedophilia has long been treated as a crime. Things are rapidly changing. Pedophilia is now considered more of a “sexual orientation” among many in the scientific community. The latest edition of the DSM, the DSM V, was going to classify pedophilia[10] as a sexual orientation but revised its decision after receiving backlash from the public. This doesn’t change the fact that there are still those seeking to normalize sex with children.


Lately, many academic papers have been surfacing which claim to dispute the findings that sexual abuse is harmful to children. In fact, many of these papers claim that there is a benefit to children under certain circumstances and that harm is generally only experienced when a child is molested against their will.  The Journal, Pedophilia Unbound: Theory, Research, and Practice[11]  is a collection of these types of fraudulent “scientific papers.”  In the first chapter entitled “Tabooed Child Sexuality,” the author writes that the sexual experiences of children are not less important than adults and that children, like adults, are normal sexual beings. The chapter itself seems to suggest that because pedophilia is a common occurrence around the world, it is normal, and child sexuality should be studied.  The author comments on the difficulties of taking on such an endeavor when child sexuality is hampered by so many taboos. This is the type of sick, demented thinking that is currently plaguing our society. Just because sex between adults and children may be a normal occurrence across the globe does not make it right. On page 79 of this publication is a paper published by Bruce Rind and Robert Bauserman entitled An Estimate of Consequences of Adult–Non-adult Sex for the Non-adults in the General Population. This paper claims that sex between adults and children can be beneficial, especially between men and young boys.  They cite studies claiming the effects of adult-child sex are based on several different factors including, how knowledgeable the child is about sex, the level of willing participation, and the child’s personal views on the negative connotations about sex, especially in the western world.  This of course implies that the western world’s views on sex, particularly sex between adults and children are outdated.  This paper further suggests that studies proving harmful effects of child sexual abuse are based on the biased samples of the population, meaning that the studies proving harmful effects are all from children who have “self-reported” child sexual abuse, and that they were likely to already have problems. Children who have allegedly experienced no harm from adult-child sex generally do not see a clinician; therefore, few studies are conducted on the benefits of such experiences.  Other studies cited by this paper also claim that many boys benefit from sexual relationships with older men because it provided the opportunity to have a positive, influential relationship.  To Rind and Bauserman’s credit, they also admit that such samples are also based on a bias because researchers that support this may be deliberately seeking out people who have had positive experiences.  The fact that sexual activities of children are even studied, encouraged, or considered a normal part of their being is indeed, disturbing all together.


Homosexuals have claimed that pedophilia is a heterosexual problem as opposed to a homosexual problem.  According to Steve Baldwin in his paper entitled “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,[12]” homosexual activist groups claim that the accusations of child molestation being a homosexual issue lends credibility to the idea that there is an effort to demonize and discredit the homosexual movement.  This would be an example of the homosexual activists playing the victim role if you will. Research on the subject, according to Baldwin, suggests however that male homosexuals are far more likely to molest young boys as opposed to heterosexuals.  After all, as Baldwin writes in his paper, it is generally gay men that advocate for the lowering of the age of consent laws and not straight men.


“Using twisted logic, pro-gay academics argue in various social science journals that the molestation of boys is not a gay lifestyle issue and that such men are not really homosexuals. It is simply amazing that gay propagandists and sexology “experts” are successfully bamboozling the public and the media into believing that a man’s exclusive focus on young males should not be defined as homosexuality! But if an exclusive attraction of a male to other males of any age is not homosexuality, what is?” (Baldwin)


In a study featured on the Family Research Institute’s website entitled Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order[13], written by Paul CameronKirk Cameronand Kay Proctor, the authors also note that child molestation against young boys is committed primarily by homosexual men. Using the fact that the homosexual population of the U.S. is roughly two percent, this research concluded that seven percent of gay males have admitted to having sex with boys that were younger than 13 years old. (Cameron et, al) The percentage of same-sex molesters compared to the percentage of the population is huge, nearly 40% of all molestations are same-sex molestations, and given the fact that over 90% of molesters are adult males it would appear that the vast majority of them are homosexual.


Furthermore, gay rights groups, according to Baldwin, are actively seeking to lessen the penalties for sexual activity with under-aged boys claiming that it is a violation of civil rights. This is the consequence of moral relativism and multiculturalism coming home to roost. The fact is that attraction to young boys is almost exclusively a homosexual problem. Baldwin writes that very few homosexuals are attracted to older men and that according to the journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior[14], cited by Baldwin, 86% of pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual.


As the gay rights agenda moves forward little attention is being paid to the possible consequences concerning the safety of our children, and more attention is being paid to the idea of feeling like we are not being overly judgmental. Homosexuality is not conducive to good health as they are more prone to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases and environments that may not be clean and sanitary. According to the Family Research Center, these facts point to homosexuality creating risk for others as well.


We certainly do not want to create a hostile environment toward homosexuals in general; however, it must be recognized that there is an element of that population that has in its sights, the lowering of the age of consent laws and normalizing pedophilia to satisfy their sexual desires. If there is not an effort to stop this, and the idea that this is a human rights issues move forward we could be causing untold damage to generations of children who should look to adults for protection, not live in fear of them, or have sexual relationships with them.


In the book Brainwashing, A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics [15] there is an interesting paragraph pertaining to the use of academic papers. Papers should exist, wrote Beria, no matter how fictitious, that legitimizes the left-wing world view. The paragraph itself is dealing with the issue of psychiatric cures for made-up mental conditions; however, the application is relevant here as a means of trying to legitimize sex with children. The bigger point is that academic papers don’t necessarily lead one to the absolute truth but to the existing bias of the left-wing controlled academic world.


Technical papers should exist as to the number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a background of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who has ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology. (Beria)


These papers, presenting pedophilia as normal, are being used to do just that, build a library of academic evidence which could be used to change the age of consent laws in the favor of the homosexual movement. The push for homosexuality and pedophilia in America is deliberate efforts to destroy our Christian culture and the foundations of individual liberty.


In an article by Mallory Millet entitled Marxist’s Feminists Ruined Lives, [16] the attempts to use homosexuality as a means of destroying the nuclear family is revealed. Millet claims she was once part of the radicalized women’s liberation movement which was started, in large part, by her sister. Kate Millet [17] has become known for her book Sexual Politics where the idea of destroying the so-called male patriarchy first took root. She is responsible for the women’s studies curriculum, which is devoted to this idea, in many of our universities. Mallory tells the story of her sister’s transformation into a radical communist and her legacy as starting the National Organization for Women. The larger point is that Mallory is telling a story in which she witnessed the origins of the push to normalize homosexuality and destroy western culture take root as early as 1969.


It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.  We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in the Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:


            “Why are we here today?” she asked.

            “To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, and homosexuality!” they resounded.


They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.  It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution.  Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches, and even the library system.


Again, it must be noted that goal number 26 of the forty-five communist goals is to present homosexuality as normal and healthy. Which is exactly what our education system has been doing. While many pushing this agenda claim it is being done to increase awareness and promote tolerance for those who live different lifestyles, it is likely being done to corrupt our youth and destroy our culture. Exposing children to sexually explicit material, whether it be of a homo or heterosexual nature has lasting consequences that can be potentially harmful. For a society that claims males are sexual predators and that “toxic masculinity” must be curbed you would think exposing kids to sex at such a young age would be discouraged. Studies have concluded that children under the age of fourteen who have been exposed to explicit sexual material are more likely to become sexually aggressive as they mature, or even become victims of a sexual assault. [18]  Young girls exposed to pornography, or explicit sex-ed may develop an unhealthy understanding of their role in sexual relationships, making them more vulnerable. Children are also more likely to be exposed to and contract sexually transmitted diseases. (Ross, n. d.) It’s ironic that those pushing this sexual agenda do so under the guise of preventing diseases such as AIDS when in fact what they are doing is increasing the risk of children contracting these diseases. It is believed by this author that the negative connotations of exposing children to sexual material at such a young age are fully understood by those pushing the agenda. For example, under what circumstances would it be appropriate to expose fourteen-year-olds to a homosexual act known as fisting [19] in a public education setting? This is exactly what happened when GLSEN, led by Kevin Jennings, who would later become President Obama’s appointed safe school czar mind you, put on a state-sponsored teacher conference in March of 2000. The Massachusetts State Department of Education is quoted as saying the following-


“Fisting [forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap… It’s an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”


Again, this type of explicit sexual behavior is being taught under the deceptive term “safe schools” intended to give the impression that creating tolerance and acceptance of people who are different is the goal. How are young teenagers, barely old enough to understand their own emotions supposed to take this? How does this promote healthy sexual relationships? It doesn’t, and that’s the point.


Schools aren’t the only place where sexually explicit material can be viewed by children. The internet has millions of websites that offer unfettered access to pornography. While many people believe that pornography sites should be censored, the first amendment has been used very effectively by those seeking to change our culture. Below are goals number twenty-four and twenty-five from the forty-five goals of the Communist party.

  1. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 


  1. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.


Many people ridicule and scoff at conspiracy theories; however, an honest assessment will lead one to the conclusion that this isn’t a conspiracy. The effects children suffer from exposure to inappropriate sexual material at young ages are well documented, yet there is an effort to expose them, nonetheless. The effects of pornography on the adult brain are understood as well, yet pornography websites, as well as advertisements and television shows which promote unhealthy sexuality, permeate our culture. Why? The first amendment is used to protect these types of programs and websites, but the truth is that it is all part of the agenda to corrupt our morality, which makes us easier to guide and control.


The human brain has a natural drive for sexual activity. One, for the obvious need to reproduce, and two, create intimacy and lasting bonds between loving couples. According to William M. Struthers of the Christian Research Institute[20], pornography takes its toll on the ability of people to create intimate bonds.


It is here more than anywhere else that pornography takes human sexuality out of its intended purpose—the establishing and deepening of intimacy between two human beings—and makes it a product to be consumed. Human beings become objects of consumption rather than individuals requiring dignity and, in this process, those involved in its production and its consumption are harmed. This harm is not only sociological and psychological but also spiritual. The product, another human being’s nakedness, or intimate moments, is consumed for another’s benefit. Searching for a video, magazine, or website that has just the ideal effect offers the promise of euphoria and connection. It has the potential to become a fixation, a compulsion akin to chasing the ever-elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The pornographic selection may be consumed once, occasionally, or on an ongoing basis, for as often as you would like. Whenever it fails to meet your standards for beauty or excitement, whenever it fails to stimulate your fantasy, or if you just become bored with the images, the people within are disposed of. Free from the need to recycle or acknowledge that real human beings were exploited, the law of supply and demand drives what the market will bear. (Struthers, n.d.)


Pornography addiction in adult males works much the same way as any other addiction. Over time, a tolerance is developed and an adult male could actually become incapable of sexual performance.[21] According to Mike Tucker from[22] pornography addiction can have devastating consequences on the family. It can create feelings of inadequacy in wives whose husbands continually view porn. It can lead to wives feeling unattractive and, in some cases, depressed. It creates unrealistic expectations in men who in many cases, may expect their partners to engage in activities they have seen while watching porn. When the wife refuses this causes men to withdraw further into the harmful world of pornography.


Why would pornography and other sexually driven content be made so readily available if it has such lasting and harmful effects? The only possible answer is that sex is being used as a weapon to demoralize society and corrupt our culture while destroying the traditional understanding of family and the role sex plays in society. Pornography viewing reduces human beings to nothing more than a product meant to be consumed for our own personal satisfaction. Sex is a gift from God meant to bring new life and solidify bonds between loving couples. The nuclear family has long been understood to lay the groundwork for a free, self-governing society. The promotion of pornography and promiscuity is a direct assault on that concept.




[1] (7-1-18)


[2] (7-1-18)


[3] (7-1-18)


[4] (7-1-18)


[5] (7-1-18)


[6] (7-1-18)


[7] (7-1-18)


[8] (7-1-18)


[9] (7-1-18)


[10] (7-1-18)


[11] (7-1-18)


[12] (7-1-18)


[13] (7-1-18)


[14] (7-1-18)


[15] (5-13-18)




[16] (7-1-18)


[17] (7-1-18)


[18] (7-7-18)


[19] (7-7-18)


[20] (7-7-18)


[21] (7-7-18)


[22] (7-7-18)




Leave a Comment


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)