SUNLIT UPLANDS: WikiLeaks

US Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning at a "gay rights" event.

From The Pro-Family Resource Center
By Dr. Scott Lively

If you’re looking for someone to blame for the Wikileaks scandal, a good candidate would be President Bill Clinton. He was the one who, in 1995, signed an Executive Order removing “sexual orientation” as a grounds for denying someone a security clearance. Had that policy never been revoked, homosexual soldier Bradley Manning would never have had access to our national secrets and could not have leaked them. According to news reports, Manning decided to turn traitor after a fight with his boyfriend, which somehow motivated him to send hundreds of thousands of confidential documents to Wikileaks leader Julian Assange, who has also been alleged by some to be “gay.”

As to motive, the Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military." (How common an attitude is that among “gays” and lesbians do you suppose, when their very identity as a political movement is defined by the rhetoric of “victimization?” )

So why were homosexuals denied security clearance in the first place? A series of Senate committee reports from the 1950s concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" and that homosexuals are "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to emotional instability and moral weakness. (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10/1/2001).

However, the reasons go much deeper into western history. According to Samuel Igra in Germany’s National Vice, the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a clique of homosexuals had gained Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser engulfed the nation in scandal from 1907 to 1914 through a series of very public criminal trials.

According to Igra it grew so severe that Germany chose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote “Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the county.” Whether or not this was the true cause of The Great War is immaterial. It is enough that it caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.

And in World War II, also according to Igra, the most notorious of the traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals: Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England, Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor.”

Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality noted:

“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country‘”…

“Another one of its members, Sir Anthony Blunt, a member of the British Intelligence [and a notorious homosexual], became a traitor and breached security, thereby causing many to die. He regularly passed highly classified information on to a nation which would become the primary foe of the free world: the Soviet Union. He once remarked to an intelligence colleague near the end of World War II, ‘it has given me great pleasure to have been able to turn over the names of every MI-5 officer to the Russians.’”

A concise summary of the problem with inviting homosexuals into highly confidential circles is drawn from the memoirs of Police Commissioner Hans von Tresckow, who headed the equivalent of the Berlin “vice squad” from 1905 to 1919:

“[I]t is not the sense of duty towards one's fellow-men or the nation that forms the rule of conduct for homosexualists; but in every turn of life and in all their striving they think only of the good or harm they may do to their own clique of friends.”

It was true then and it is true today. Just ask Bradley Manning.

Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney and President of Defend the Family International. The facts in this editorial are documented in his book The Poisoned Stream which is published in PDF form at www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/poisonedstream/poisonedstream.pdf

From Chronicles
By Thomas Fleming

The USA regime will soon recover from the embarrassments created by the massive release of diplomatic documents onto the Internet. There will be investigations and prosecutions. There will be ironic attempts by Madame Clinton and her colleagues to pretend that personal attacks on heads of state and foreign diplomats are de rigueur in the business of foreign affairs, but what few commentators have bothered to point out is the childish style of the papers. Mme. Clinton wants to probe the anxieties and possible drug use of the Argentine President; Putin and Medved are compared with Batman and Robin. The rhetoric and tone range from bitchy to puerile to paranoid. And these are the people that rule the world.

No, to anticipate the obvious question, it was not ever thus. We have thousands upon thousands of pages of state papers and private letters from leading politicians over the past two thousand years, and while Cicero may make jokes about Pompey or members of Lincoln’s cabinet sneer at the vulgarity and ignorance of their chief, the language of diplomats has been veiled and guarded even when caustic–especially when caustic. A famous diplomat of the 17th century said a diplomat was someone sent to lie abroad for his country. What Sir Henry Wotton did not say–because it was obvious–that the lying had to be managed with dignity and grace. Remember the odious Harold Macmillan’s response to Kruschev’s shoe-rapping outburst at the United Nations? He dryly asked for a translation. Reserve, tact, self-restraint–the virtues of a good card player–were required of diplomats and statesmen. Now we have churls and braggarts like Clinton, Rice, Albright, and that unspeakable pair, Richard Holbrooke and John Bolton, spoiled children who go around the world stirring up resentment against their government and its people.

American journalists are still whining about poor Richard Nixon. Nixon made many mistakes, not the least of which was to promote Henry Kissinger to a position that was so far beyond his competence as to defy the Peter Principle, but for the most part,, when he was not pretending to be a regular guy, Nixon knew how to conduct himself on the world’s stage. Our current crop of statesmen are perfect for Saturday Night Live.

Thomas Fleming is the editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and president of The Rockford Institute. He is the author of several books, including The Morality of Everyday Life.