A Small-Group Encounter 'Sensitivity Training' Session©


Gerald L. Atkinson

1 April 2000


If you have never been exposed to the most effective tool in the modern science of coercion, 'sensitivity training,' it is well worth the effort to seek out the opportunity to attend such a session. Recently, I had my first personal exposure to this powerful method of 'behavior modification.'

The event was a public forum sponsored by our federal and state of Maryland tax dollars. The all-day 'workshop' was funded by the Centers for Disease Control, the AIDS Administration of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Maryland State Department of Education. The one-day 'workshop' was free to the public and served breakfast snacks and lunch free of charge.

The subject of the Saturday 'workshop' was "Just the Facts -- Sexual Orientation and Safe Schools." It was designed for high school staff and families who want to make all schools safe for sexual minority youth in Maryland. Attendance was limited to 100 persons on a first-come, first-served basis.

I attended at the invitation of one of four persons in attendance who oppose the homosexual agenda in our culture. These four persons had attended a previous 'workshop' on the same subject the year before and were instrumental in exposing the true agenda of the 'workshop' to State of Maryland legislators who had been persuaded by the homosexual lobby to force a program of 'tolerance' (in truth, acceptance and vulnerability to recruitment) on Maryland public schools by law. The bill was defeated after this exposure.

The person who had invited me to attend had a camcorder with which he intended to record the proceedings for ready reference to the slides and other materials presented at the 'workshop.' Before he could set up his equipment, a coordinator came up and told him that the proceedings could not be filmed or audio-recorded. His mild protest on the basis of ease of obtaining a record of the events for future referral was met with a stern warning that there was to be no such recording of events. The coordinator stated that she would have to impound the camcorder and return it to him at the end of the session. He then politely but firmly stated that he would put his camcorder away and keep it stowed.

Then, once again, before the keynote speaker was introduced, the State of Maryland 'coordinator' announced the rule that no one could take moving or still pictures of the presentations in deference to the presenters and members of the audience (who might not want to be identified). While this appeared to be reasonable on privacy grounds, it did not make sense for a public meeting sponsored by Federal and State offices and funded by public monies and voluntarily attended. She then stated the real reason. "Some would use the film to misrepresent what was presented and discussed here." She also warned the audience that some might become 'disturbed' during the 'group sessions' (scheduled in the afternoon) and that she may have to step in and make some hard decisions that might not please the person involved. This was explained to me by a member of the audience who had attended the previous workshop to mean, 'If you ask a question of a negative or challenging nature, you will be asked to leave.'

One quickly became aware that the workshop would have an agenda and that there would be no questioning of the 'facts' presented by the work-shop organizers. That awareness soon became a reality.

The Keynote Address

The keynote speaker was a young woman in her late 30s who is employed as a 'researcher' by the National Institutes of Health. She is a 'therapist' social worker. She had written a book on the subject of her talk, 'Adolescent Homosexuality.' She spoke for about one hour and fifteen minutes on the subject.

It was revealing that at the end of her talk, she answered an innocent question from the audience concerning whether or not she would pass out or otherwise provide copies of her slide presentation to the audience. Her answer was a firm and resounding NO! Without explanation.

The reason for her refusal soon became apparent. The 'facts' which appeared on her slides were quite suspect -- both in their statistical validity and in their interpretation.

Her main points were, 1) there is a separate and evolving culture for the current generation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, 2) the age of their first awareness of same-sex attraction, first same-sex experience, and self-identity as a homosexual is now about five years earlier than with prior generations, 3) the consolidating of homosexual identity in adolescent development is often without support of family (which is repressive) and often under stigmatized identities on the part of hurtful straight adolescents.

The speaker observed that some teenagers who want to 'come out' suffer from multiply stigmatized identities -- lesbian/gay as well as minority status. She stressed that parents may become abusive, especially to daughters and some even throw their homosexual teenagers out of the house.

The speaker then presented one of the most disingenuous slides of the day. Several 'studies,' identified by locality but not by title or author, were referenced in which, for example, 6 percent of 8,700 high school students answered a questionnaire indicating that they had been 'harassed/assaulted' during the last year for having been identified as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Some, so identified, were only perceived such by the perpetrators but were actually straight. The speaker did not entertain questions about the definition of 'harassment' and 'assault.' Nor did she entertain questions on the breakout of each category alone. It became obvious that this grouping was a gross misrepresentation of 'squishy' data. But that did not phase the confidence of the keynote speaker. She presented as fact that 34% of the self-identified lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth were 'harassed or assaulted' in their high school environment.

It was only during the following panel discussion that a working definition of 'harassment' was provided. Of course, it involved speech, not acts.

The speaker praised the support of PFLAG, an organization of parents and families of lesbian and gay people. There were many in the audience of 100 who were members of that organization.

The speaker concluded her presentation with the following edict. A safe environment must be assured for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered youth in our schools. In order to assure this result, it is mandatory that the following be provided,

1) Training (presumably 'sensitivity training') for all staff and faculty. This training will stress that 'jokes' which

are considered 'hurtful' (by the 'victims') will not be tolerated.

2) Such training must be required in the school curricula

3) Resource materials must be required in school libraries

4) Sexual orientation must be required as a category in nondiscrimination and harassment school policies.

She emphasized that this must be accomplished at the state level by legislation. The one-school-at-a-time strategy is not good enough. The message that must be supported is that the STATE must MANDATE these initiatives. It must be given the power of law.

The Youth and Parent Panel

The youth panel was comprised of seven teenagers, all high school students, and one adult father. There were four females and three males, all but one of whom gave a description of when they 'came out' of the closet and announced their lesbian/homosexual identity. One female was a 'straight' who had gay friends. All were active in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in their schools and on the Internet. All were 16-18 years of age except one male youth who was 23-years of age.

The parent, a man in his 40s, professed to be openly gay and said that he had two middle-school daughters. He described how his daughters hear 'epithets' in school such as, 'Oh, that's so gay,' meaning 'Oh, that's so stupid' in the lexicon of today's youth. He described this as abusive harassment of gays.

The teenagers were all quite articulate, composed, and proud of the accounts of their 'sexual orientation,' their 'coming out,' and their school activities in support of the homosexual agenda. Their accounts were met with spontaneous approval, applause and supportive comments by the audience. This audience was composed primarily of school teachers, school librarians, parents and family members of homosexuals and other supporters of the homosexual agenda. One was an openly gay ordained minister who stated, "Organized religions are the main reactionary forces behind the non-acceptance of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals."

Two Bethesda, MD students were members of a gay-straight alliance (GSA). One was using the Internet to coordinate and network the local GSAs into a national advocacy group. Another youthful 'lesbian' said that the anonymity of the Internet (chat rooms, etc.) was the greatest support network for her 'coming out,' not her family or other institutions. Another stated that anti-discrimination laws (as exist in Montgomery County) provide the authority required for school administrators to support the kids in organizing these GSAs.

One teenage male homosexual described a 'coming out' day he had organized in his school. He said that epithets such as, 'Oh, you're so gay,' 'faggot, and 'homo' were hurled at the few participants who used the event to announce their 'sexual orientation.' He described the phrase, 'Oh, that's so gay,' as hate speech that amounted to harassment.

One young lesbian said that she could report any such remark made to her to any teacher at her school (Rowland Park High School in Baltimore, MD) and have the name-caller hauled before an Honor Board. Yes, indeed, speech is treated as an act -- punishable by the authorities, if you at-tend certain schools. And if the sponsors of this workshop have their way, for all Maryland schools -- backed by the authority of a STATE law.

The gay father on the panel said that he expects a teacher to act when a student says anything to a gay student which makes the latter 'feel uncomfortable.' This, in essence, became the workshop 'working definition' of harassment.

The youth panel epitomized the main concept/idea of the workshop as its sub-text -- organize, proselytize, and advertise the idea that 'coming out' during adolescence is OK, normal. It was obvious that these youths were exhilarated by the attention given them. It was also obvious that they were being used by the organizers as a buffer against criticism of their agenda. After all, who could be so cruel or heartless as to say anything that would hurt the 'feelings' of vulnerable, loveable, adolescents. And if one was crude enough to do so in this public forum, the members of PFLAG would erupt in derisive rants of 'discrimination' and 'hate speech.' That did not happen at this workshop. Any opposition was well mannered and well behaved. But it was painfully clear that the workshop sponsors where using these vulnerable youths as a shield behind which they could advance their agenda -- without opposition.

One important question was raised by a member of the audience, however. He asked whether or not the subject of religion had ever come up as a 'conflict' in their decisions or activities. One youthful 'lesbian' said that her father was an orthodox Jew and her mother was a Wiccan. An incredulous audience member asked, "What is a Wiccan?" The soft answer, 'It is a Pagan religion that celebrates witchcraft' wafted over the audience. The youngster said that her mother and her friends, whose religion accepts homosexual practices, were great supporters of her life-style and her organizing efforts.

Another had no religious background. One male, who had been in foster homes since his sixth birthday, said that his last foster home (he now lives in a community center for homosexuals in the city) was one which practiced born-again evangelism. He described how he hated going to church and listen to a minister describe the boy's chosen lifestyle as sinful. At this revelation, the audience murmured derisively in uni-son. It was clear that any religious belief that opposed the homosexual agenda was a 'reactionary' force in society and deserved contempt.

Another gay youth was raised in a religion-hating family. He rebelled and tried to find out as much as he could about ALL religions. At this point in time, he described himself as an agnostic.

Two other youths said they were raised in Jewish families. One young 'lesbian,' a Rowland Park High School student, said that her English class was reading 'Angels in America,' and she thought this play, glorifying the homosexual lifestyle, was simply great. She said she had re-belled against being raised in an established religion and decided for now to be an athiest. She said that she will decide later on about a religion for herself.

The youth panel was dismissed amid praise by the workshop organizers and voluminous, sustained applause by the audience.

The Sensitivity Training Session

After lunch, the workshop participants were free to chose among four 'breakout sessions,' each with a different theme as it related to the workshop topic. These sessions lasted for one hour and fifteen minutes. I chose to attend the encounter group which discussed, 'Matters of Fact and Faith -- Dealing with Diverse Views of Homosexuality in a School Community.'

There were 22 people in this group; 16 women and 6 men, led by a lone 'facilitator.' This leader was a middle-aged (late 40s - early 50s) female sexologist who teaches sex education at Rowland Park High School in Baltimore, MD. This school for girls is one of the best such schools in the state of Maryland with tuition (a private school) of about $15K per student per year.

The facilitator announced that she would break the group up into smaller groups of 3 or 4 people in a sub-group. The whole group was seated in a semi-circle in a small room.

Just before the session started, my seat was at the end of the semi-circle. Two women came in at the last minute and placed their chairs, one on each side of mine. The one on my right was the keynote speaker -- a federal government employee and a promoter of the homosexual agenda. The one on my immediate left was a member of the youth panel who had previously spoken of her 'coming out' experiences in a high school environment.

The facilitator assigned each sub-group the task of 'sharing with each other' why we were there and what each of us thinks about 'inclusivity' of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in our culture -- especially as to how this pertains to a high school environment. We were told to search for the 'common ground.' That is, we were to discuss 'Why did we come here?,' 'What are our goals in coming here?,' and 'Where do we come from on this issue?'

So we broke off into about 5 or 6 sub-groups, each forming a small circle of chairs. My sub-group consisted of 4 young women and me -- a much older gray-haired male.

It was clear from the start that ours was going to be a contentious 'sensitivity training,' T-group, or encounter group. The facilitator continually drifted over to our group to listen in on the conversation -- especially when I spoke.

Recall the warning by the State of Maryland 'coordinator' in her workshop opening statement that '...some might become 'disturbed' during the small-group encounter sessions and that she or someone else in authority may have to step in and make some hard decisions that might not please the person involved.'

Another sign of contentiousness was the aforementioned positioning of two of the most prominent lesbians at the conference on each side of me -- one the keynote speaker from NIH and the other a self-assured, articulate teenager on the Youth Panel. The other two females, one in her late-40s, the other in her mid-30s, proudly professed (with a 'knowing' smile to the others -- completely beyond my comprehension) to be Yew Yews. That is, they were Unitarians of the Universalist Church. [The Unitarian Universalists of the mother church have taken a position that “God exists – perhaps. About half of the Unitarians are atheists. Unitary Christianity recognizes Jesus, but not as part of a triune God…The mother church promotes a creed that: ‘In the end, religious authority lied not in a book, person, or institution, but in ourselves…Instead of fitting a religion, [one] can find a religion to fit [one’s self]. You don’t have to see God as straight, white, and a man.’”]

The older of the two spoke first (after my polite and soft demurral to speak first -- my first test of whether or not a person in a 'sensitivity training' session could choose to remain silent). She said she was a sex education teacher in a public school and even she was chagrined to come home and hear her daughter comment about some school event, 'That's so gay.' That was interpreted by the mother to mean, 'That's so stupid.' When she challenged her daughter on this, the daughter said, "Oh mom, we didn't mean anything by this comment. It's just a saying. It doesn't mean anything."

Recall that this expression, 'Oh you're so gay,' or 'Oh it's so gay' was interpreted by at least four homosexuals on the youth panel -- one an openly homosexual father of two middle-school daughters -- and others in the audience-at-large as harassment, that is, abusive speech that they, the victims, judged to be insulting and demeaning. Thus, it was an ACT of harassment.

The Yew Yew mother said that she believed such a statement was tantamount to an act of abuse -- harassment. In her eyes, this speech creates an unsafe environment in our schools.

The younger Yew Yew said, approvingly, that "Kids are young enough in her church to know that such sayings are not politically correct."

The next person whose turn it was to speak in the counter-clockwise progression around the circle was the young high school 'lesbian.' As I turned my head to listen to her in deference to the established order, the older Yew Yew blurted out, "No, it's your turn" as her steel-cold eyes stared at me. I politely demurred, noting that it was the young lady's turn. At that, the lesbian on my right (the keynote speaker) almost shouted in unison with the older Yew Yew, "No! We want to hear from you. We've already heard her on the Youth Panel. We want to know who you are and why you are here!"

So much for the test of one choosing to remain silent in a 'sensitivity training' session. Silence is not an option.

Just as it was not an option for our Korean War POWs, who were subjected to the exact-same small-group encounter sessions by their Chinese captors. To the recalcitrant GI, his fellow POWs would shout, "Look, buddy, participate in this thing -- we want to eat." The Chinese used small-group peer pressure by the GI participants to force participation by all -- or none would eat. Participation was enforced by their own peer group. Clever people, those Chinese. And it worked.

As it works in the United States of America, when applied by those who know the power of the science of coercion.

Having lost that skirmish, I said that I, indeed, had something to say and that I would be happy to share it with them. I told them my name and then said I had little interest in the subject matter of the work-shop because I knew next to nothing about the subject. I said I was there to observe the process. I had written extensively on the subject of 'sensitivity training' but had never before had the opportunity to observe an encounter group first hand. I was there to observe what occurred during this session under the guidance of a trained facilitator.

At this statement, the keynote speaker began furiously writing on her note pad. But this was still not good enough for her. She demanded to know what I thought of the presentation so far in the workshop. Obviously, not only was silence forbidden, but now your speech was to be scrutinized for 'hurtful' thoughts. In that direction, you would become vulnerable to the dreaded charge of 'discrimination.'

I did not bite on the bait. Instead, I attacked (very calmly and gently) the keynote speaker's presentation of fact that 6 percent of an 8,000-plus group of high school youths had been harassed/assaulted in a recent Seattle, WA 'study.' I said that if the harassment/assault figure included those youths who had heard the statement, 'Oh that's so gay,' as harassment, then the whole statistic was a gross misrepresentation of fact.

Not only was this a misrepresentation of fact to include such an e-vent under an over-broad category of assault, but even to include it as harassment. The keynote speaker looked me directly in the eye and with steely firmness lied to me about this statistic. (I was reminded of the steely-eyed lie by the President of the United States when he looked the American people in the eye on national television and said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"). She said the statistic did not include a tabulation of such a phrase as harassment and, indeed, did not imply such a use.

I reminded her that the young man right over there on our left in the room (the middle-aged father of two middle-school daughters) who was on the Gay Youth Panel and who was proud of his own 'coming out,' had identified such a phrase as harassment -- which should be stamped out in our schools because it was an abusive act. And 'I didn't hear you speak out to correct him during that session.'

I said that, indeed, I had heard at least 4 youths on the panel and others in the audience describe that phrase as harassment -- 'again without rejoinder from you.' So, I said, that it, indeed, was included in her statistic, by implication at least, if not by the study bean counters.

Caught outright in a lie, the other females looked at their hands in their laps while the keynote speaker fumed. So they answered the fact-of being caught in a falsehood with another lie.

The facilitator, sensing a controversy, hustled over to listen in on our conversation. It was then that the older Yew Yew chimed in with her attempt to intimidate with another lie.

She blurted out, "The holocaust." I couldn't imagine how this sub-ject would relate to the conversation or the topic of the workshop -- but I waited politely during the ensuing silence, while she collected her thoughts and decided where she wanted to take this non-sequitur into our conversation.

The older Yew Yew continued. "Suppose you were Jewish. And suppose someone said to you, 'Oh, you're oh so Jewish,' meaning 'Oh, you're oh so stupid.' How would you feel?" I looked at her with incredulity. I told her that this would make absolutely no sense to me. In fact, I said that most of the Jewish people I know are a hell of a lot smarter than I, so I couldn't imagine such an interpretation.

At this, the radical feminists in my sub-group were reduced to mumbling among themselves. Attempts to seek support of their present line of argument from the facilitator, who lurked within hearing distance, they knew were futile. Why? Because the facilitator had opened her remarks with the statement that she was proud of three things, the first of which was her Jewishness.

Not wanting to leave a 'winning' argument on the floor, I turned to the keynote speaker and asked her how in the world anyone could interpret the phrase, 'Oh so gay,' as meaning 'Oh, so stupid.' In the first place, words have meaning and these meanings can be looked up in a dictionary. And there is absolutely no dictionary definition of 'gay' as synonymous with 'stupid.' They mumbled something about this connotation beginning only a few years ago -- but believe them, it is real and it is being used today in such a manner, as an abusive insult to gay youth.

I then asked them whether or not sex educators had a requirement to be fluent or at least functional in the use of the English language. This again left the older Yew Yew and the keynote speaker mumbling to themselves -- getting red in the face.

I then asked the older Yew Yew if she knew where her religion originated. She looked surprised at this line of questioning and mumbled something about '...I think it started in New England.' I said that this was correct and that all of this discussion should be placed in the con-text of objective history.

I then told her that the Unitarian Universalist religion was most powerful in the early-to-mid 1800s when they backed the abolitionist movement. In fact, they were a major driving force behind the idealistic Transcendental generation's moral and financial support of John Brown. Today's Boomer generation of which the Yew Yew is a member are a throw-back to the Transcendentals who encouraged John Brown's activities in fomenting the Civil War. John Brown was responsible for murdering in cold blood five poor Kansas dirt farmers, including wives and children, thus introducing for the first time in our nation's history, the pagan practice of human sacrifice in American politics.

At this revelation, the elder Yew Yew became apoplectic. She fairly shouted, "We are not here to talk about history. We are here to talk about safety for lesbian and gay youth in our schools."

I countered with the thought that any discussion had to be conducted in the context of objective history. History has a habit of repeating itself and most of what has been discussed today has occurred many times before in the history of mankind. We should be able to learn from this historical record.

At this, the adult females were looking for help from the self-proclaimed lesbian youth on my left. They had exploited her and her 'outed' adolescent friends all morning during the workshop in order to stifle pointed questions and arguments contrary to theirs. After all, who would be so crass, so devoid of compassion, to make adolescents feel uncomfortable with their self-proclaimed life-style, in front of adults?

So, the young lady piped in with "I remember in one of my classes that a very famous philosopher said, 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'" The other females brightened up and smiled with delight at this possible new winning tack. They nodded and exclaimed their approval at this touchstone saying -- a staple of support for American patriotism (especially during and in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War by conservatives who supported the war but wished to console, or be inclusive of, those who had joined Ho Chi Minh).

Emboldened by the adult support, the adolescent added, "I think this quote came from either Voltaire or (quizzical look) maybe Machiavelli."

I interjected that it couldn't have been the latter but was most certainly Voltaire. I then reminded the group that Voltaire was responsible, along with Rousseau, of fomenting the socialist French Revolution , which, after an orgy of blood-letting, had disintegrated into anarchy. Indeed, after guillotining the King, Queen, and their family and thousands of aristocrats, the revolutionaries started killing priests and officials of the Church in order to destroy the dominant religion. After murdering tens of thousands of innocent Frenchmen, the Jacobin revolutionaries turned on their own and 'spit the head' of Robespierre, the lower-dark functionary leader of the revolution which destroyed France, 'into the basket.'

Thus, Voltaire who provided the intellectual and philosophical foundation for this murderous revolution, had set the stage for the Franco-German way. This path led through Kant, Hegel, and Marx to the bloodiest century (the 20th) in mankind's history.

Indeed, words without the context of objective history can be extremely dangerous.

At this history lesson, the females in my sub-group went ballistic. From that point on, I was essentially excluded from the conversation. They were not interested in history -- only the forced topic of the day, the homosexual agenda.

At this point, the facilitator broke in to announce that she had another task for the sub-groups. She wanted us next to attempt to come to a 'common understanding' of two terms -- tolerance and homophobia. Our task was to answer the question, 'What frustrates you -- what frustrated you about what you heard today?' We were given about ten minutes to discuss these questions.

You must by now understand, that is, become aware that these 'sensitivity training' sessions are very carefully orchestrated to serve an agenda. The subject matter is very carefully regimented and controlled by narrowly defining the range of discussion topics. This is an important part of assuring the desired outcome. And what is that? You will either be forced to change your 'world view' on the subject matter by the coercive psychological methods of the encounter group -- using peer pressure -- or if that does not work, you will be rendered 'passive' by the confrontational atmosphere if you have a 'differing' view of the world and can be intimidated into silence. You will be rendered unable to formulate a RESISTANCE to the radical feminist agenda. And if that does not work, you will be excluded from the group. Anyone who opposes this coercion will be either silenced or expelled.

That is how 'sensitivity training' is being used in America today -- in our public schools, in our elite universities and in our public discourse. That is how it was conducted in this workshop.

The older Yew Yew frowned and said that she did not like the 'negative' aspect of the word 'tolerance.' That is, the word can be used in the sense of 'tolerating pain.' And of course that is not what they wish to connote with respect to the subject of 'harassment' of homosexual adolescents in our schools. They want a 'positive' sense of the word. It should mean that others who are 'different,' that is, sexual minorities, should be accepted by straight people.

From this experience, it is clear that the homosexual agenda pays only lip-service to tolerance. This word is used solely as a weapon. They actually want not only acceptance, but, in the end, celebration of homosexuality. And having won celebration, they have opened the door to unrestrained recruitment of our children and grandchildren.

The older Yew Yew's plea was accepted with nodding approval by the other members of the sub-group, less me. I was not given a chance to voice my opinion. At this point, I could not even politely interrupt to speak my piece. I was being excluded from participation in the group discussion.

Then the older Yew Yew gave her version of the term, 'homophobia.' She said it was the intense dislike of gay people. Evidently, her religion did not preach that one could 'hate the sin and love the sinner.' Of course, such a formulation would have been forbidden in this environment. This would have been ridiculed, with derisive laughter, as was seen in the larger workshop, when the idea arose that organized religions opposed the concept of 'sexual orientation.'

The facilitator then took the reins of control again. She gave her version of the definitions. Tolerance was the basis of a civil society. It essentially meant 'live and let live.' She passed out a sheet of paper on which were several definitions of homophobia -- heterosexism, cultural homophobia, social homophobia, and psychological homophobia. Of course, each was couched in terms that would place a person who opposed homosexuality (for whatever reason) in a defensive position.

For example, heterosexism was defined and then capped with the admonition that "...prejudicial attitudes or discriminatory acts against gay and lesbian individuals which follow from the above beliefs (these may be conscious or unconscious, overt or covert, intentional or non-intentional...)." So, of course, anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda is guilty of these evil things even if they aren't aware of their evil. And of course if this is true then the 'authorities' have the right to punish you for these things -- even if unintended.

The facilitator capped the definition of homophobia with a crowning assertion. Psychological homophobia is an irrational fear and/or hatred of lesbian and gay individuals derived from a highly personalized and phobic reaction to the concept of homosexuality...a psychological defense mechanism against the dread fear that they themselves are gay.

Absent in all of these definitions is any mention of the fact that most heterosexuals have become disgusted with the homosexual agenda that sexualizes every activity, every aspect of our lives, and hold in con-tempt the behavior of those who have little interest in reproducing the human species. Indeed, the homosexual agenda can reasonably be opposed on many grounds; religious, scientific, and historical, as well as on privacy concerns, among others. And none of this is even close to hatred, fear, paranoia or any other word-weapon cast by those who support the homosexual agenda against the normal majority.

The facilitator then capped her performance by stating that she is proud of being non-judgmental with regard to knowledge -- in her role as a teacher. But she asserted dramatically that this non-judgmentalism does not extend to behavior. Of course, she meant behavior such as that exhibited by those who oppose the homosexual agenda.

She concluded by saying that "Schools are in the business of promoting a safe school environment for everyone." Of course, who could possibly disagree with this. At issue, however, is the ultimately important question of what constitutes 'harassment.' She and her New Totalitarian cohorts would have us believe that our children’s speech, indeed their and our very thoughts, are subject to scrutiny. And subject to penalties under the law -- their law, that of a totalitarian state.

Be aware. Be warned. This may come about in the State of Maryland as a result of laws of which you are not even aware but which are being considered by the Maryland State Legislature. At the time of the workshop (1 April 2000), five such bills were under consideration under the Maryland State Legislation 2000 program.

By April 2001, one of these bills, the 'Homosexual Rights Act,' which added sexual orientation to a law that prohibits discrimination based on factors such as race, religion and gender, passed the State Senate and the House of Delegates to become law. The law is designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination on the job and in housing.

The workshop ended with an hour-long strategy session during which the organizers urged that each person in attendance work toward influencing their local school board through the 'public health' specialist on that board to implement rules whereby students would be punished for intolerant attitudes toward gay, lesbian or bisexual schoolmates. "Our schools must be made safe for such students." As the older Yew Yew in my sensitivity training session sternly asserted, "When we get punishment for intolerance written into State law -- then we'll have safe schools."

Her eyes glared with hatred as she spat out each word. Yes, the New Totalitarians are at work -- on the path to enslaving our nation's children.


Home ADM Larson: Anatomy of a Closet Leftist