The Pete Quiñones Show - *Throwback* How They Brainwashed 'Straight America' w/ Charlemagne

Episode Date: January 1, 2026

55 MinutesPG-13Charlemagne is a content creator on YouTube and Substack and a member of the Old Glory Club.Pete asked Charles to come on the show to read and comment on the 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America," by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. In it, they lay out a plan to normalize homosexuality in the mind of the average American while demonizing Americans who would reject their plan. Episode 910.Charlie's Find My FrensPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano show. It's been a while since I had Charlaman on. How are you doing, Charles? I'm very good. Lovely to be back. It's been a while. Happy birthday, man. Thanks very much.

That's cool. That's cool. The smallest of white pills are great at this time. So we take them where we can get them. No, it's good. Like you said, once you get up there, the birthdays, stop being the same, but it's always nice to have a pleasant birthday. Yeah, it really is.

All right, well, a listener shared this article with me. It's from 1987. I'm going to share it in a second so that we can read through it. We can comment on it. And you've seen me do this before. You know that you can just stop me at any time. The article is called The Overhauling of Straight America. it is from

it was published in a here let me read this okay this is from Hawaii Free Press they republished the article but I think they have a really good little introduction here let me share it why not

heck let's just start let's just get going so the overhauling of straight America this introduction that they done here says the following article title the overhauling of straight America was written by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastus Pill and appeared in Guide magazine, a homosexual publication in November 1987. This landmark article has become a Bible

of the homosexual movement and has since been widely republished on the internet and elsewhere. I will say that this was actually expanded and turned into a book called After the Ball that was released in 1989, a much more extensive guide for what they're going to lay out here. So the landmark article has become a Bible of the homosexual movement has since been widely republished on the internet and elsewhere.

It outlines strategies and techniques for a successful widespread propaganda campaign to confuse and deceive the American people and demonize opponents. Like all propaganda, their methods are based not on solid intellectual arguments, but instead upon emotional manipulation of the public in an attempt to gain widespread sympathy and approval for homosexual behavior. As you read this, keep in mind that it was written in 1987 and look around to see how far

the homosexual movement has gotten using these techniques. The editor, the person who's editing this, has a note here. It says, co-author, who is using a pseudonym, Arrestis Pill, is the pseudonym for Hunter Madsen. In Greek, Arastus refers to an adult male pursuer of young boys. It is the root word of pederasty. Kale is self-explanatory. In spite of the advanced information strategies delineated by these authors, they are laughing at you from the byline. We are reprinting the first half of the article and looking into the entire article so that Hawaii residents may understand how society has been manipulated to invent gay marriage and why this

is not the end. Well, this is fascinating. It seems almost like this is one of those secret blogs that we pass around. This is the flip side of the Ted Kaczynski post or something like that, because I've never heard of this. So it seems like it could be pretty invested in the homosexual movement to even know that this article exists. It being made into a book that apparently was a big seller.

I can look that up in a little bit. but so you know it's one of those things it's like with the book the authoritarian personality the authoritarian personality lays out a strategy and it gives opinions on what kind of qualities somebody would possess that would make them a fascist and when you look at the questions and the opinions that they ask people to you know say how did they feel about this, all of the opinions in that book are basically demonized now. Strong central family, mother and father, go to church, a strong belief that that people who hurt children and are sexual with children should be punished beyond

what the law allows. When you look at a book like the authoritarian personality, you see, well, maybe it was somebody's opinion, but it seems like they went to work using that book to demonize, mostly just white people, white Anglo-Saxons, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and in general. And when we, I've read through this, when you read through this, it's you look and you're like, oh, well, pretty much all of this has been done. So I just look at this as how do they do it? yeah it looks like an instruction manual uh like i said it from looking at it it sounds similar to

what ted k wrote because i just reviewed all that and it seems like it's literally their version of that for going on the opposite direction yep yep all right so i'll start reading stop me anytime when i read with a he was stopping me mid sentence so if you wanted well i can tell i already want to stop you before we get the step one but let's let's look at this part sure all right the hauling a straight America, Marshall K. Kirk and Arrestis pill. The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for

ice cream or sports games. She likes strawberry, and I like Vanilla. He follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal. At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full appreciation or understanding of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually one. And to get to shoulder shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien,

loathsome, and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. All right. So, yeah, this part here is very. interesting because this has clearly happened to me and I think it happens to most millennials who work in a corporate environment because if you're not desensitized to gays I mean you're basically screwed if you have like a visceral reaction the homosexuals you're just not going to make it one thing I've noticed is I sort of have a inbuilt

negative reaction to zoomers like zoomers seem to be very at least right-wing zoomers seem to be not desensitized to gays and react very strongly against them, which I actually find weird and kind of off-putting, even though I shouldn't do that. So despite being involved in this for so long, I'm still having to, like, consciously kind of depropagandize myself, because what they just outlined in this first paragraph has absolutely been done and worked and is deeply ingrained in every single millennial, I think. Well, I mean, if you have ever, if you've worked for a corporation in the last 15, 20 years, you've had to sit, watch the video and sign that if you violate anything in this video

and you don't, you know, 100% basically agree with that video, if that comes out, you're fired. No, you know, no questions asked. And it's, even if you do have a natural inclination towards, you're forced into it and forcing people to walk a certain way causes the decis will can lead to the desensitization that he's talking about here in the introduction so all right and any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things so step one talk about gays and gayness as loudly as and as often as possible Is that, are the other steps in all caps, or is that just a bit of irony there?

The principle behind this advice is simple. Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you're exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novel. at first, many in times past were momentarily scandalized by streaking, eating goldfish, and premarital sex. We can see how old this is. But as long as Joe's six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on.

The skeptic may still shake his head and think people are crazy these days. But over time, his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, and less emotional. So that last sentence is interesting because I noticed this happened on the right wing where they try to push the issue over and over and over until it gets to the point where you're like debating what a woman is or something like with Matt Walsh. And that's basically how they win because they just trap you in this dialectic where now instead of having your initial gut reaction, you're second guessing yourself and you're trying to endlessly explain things with these really detailed definition that can never quite capture

exactly what you need to take down their arguments and then you just kind of lose by default when really it's that initial emotional reaction that is the thing that can actually stop them and that's always what they prevent by getting you stuck in this philosophy nonsense when dealing with this stuff. Right. If your initial reaction is, you know, fuck off. I don't care. I'm not listening to you. That's a different story. They back down. If you start arguing with them and start using their language and you start playing on their field, they've won because they make the rules. And that's what we see, you know, BoomerCon, Boomer Truth Regimers and Con Inc. engaged in. To the point where you have to question whether they're like their conscious controlled opposition because they're so

they're so invested in arguing on that playing field. All right. The way to be numb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful more above board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization

so long as respectable gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome. I'm just basically going to beat you over the head with it until you submit. And most people do because, you know, especially on the quote-unquote right in this country, most people just want to grill and be left alone and want to live their life in peace. But these people are going to take it further. Yeah, go ahead. This bit about respectable gaze is interesting, too, because like these sort of hiring quotas,

whether they exist officially or just in a sort of informal HR capacity. it basically forces gays into a position of being homosexual, right? So before, if you're just like, maybe when this was written, gays were sort of looked down upon, but now they all have these jobs.

I mean, they're in the White House, for God's sake. So they're sort of forced to be viewed as respectable by everyone because they're given respectable jobs by the people in charge of these institutions. As the old guy here, let me say, this is right in the middle of the AIDS crisis.

wow yeah yeah yeah yeah and i know that somebody's going to share an article saying that aids the AIDS virus doesn't exist yada yada i've read all that stuff too i'm just going with what history is telling us here you don't have to share your articles i've read them thank you moving on and when we say talk about homosexuality we mean just that in the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent, only later his unsightly

derrier. Wow, that's just so ridiculously honest that last bit there. But yeah, that's what the stuff is reduced to now. We're just arguing about what the Constitution says about gay rights, and we're not arguing anything to do about the fact that the stuff is disgusting. Or that they're more worried about the fact that there are trans people, that a trans person is showing their breasts at the White House, they're more worried about that than the fact that a trans person is showing their breasts at the White House. They're worried about how it looks versus the fact that, you know, the enemy is within the gate.

The enemy controls it now. Where we talk is important. The visual media, film, and television are plainly the most powerful image makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Do you think that's gone down at all? Surely it has. I mean, maybe it's been replaced by phones,

and it might even be more prevalent now with the phones. I mean, I've seen a lot of people who would fall into that category become addicted to, like, doom scrolling, like much older people. But I don't know. That's actually a good question. I've never really thought about that. I mean, even, I remember watching way too much TV when I was younger even because, you know, the Saturday morning cartoons would be on or whatever and you just watch for like three hours

straight, but that doesn't happen anymore, does it? So, yeah, I mean, I just look at the fact that like, I mean, I haven't had cable or anything really besides like Amazon Firestick and some, some programs, some APK. that I put on there for eight years now. So, I mean, I don't, when people tell me, like, well, this commercial is on network television, and it just shows it's openly homosexual and everything. I'm like, well, I mean, I just, I haven't watched it in forever. Okay.

Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straits, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the medium is the message of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past 10 years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films, though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous effects. On the whole, the impact has been encouraging, The primetime presentation of consenting adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high watermark

infavorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America. I mean, this is just amazing because you'll still see people talk about this like it's some sort of conspiracy theory. And here they are just saying that Hollywood is doing our workforce. They're normalizing it. They're putting more and more gays in. the point is to desensitize you

to gaze. I mean, it's just all right here. And it's amazing. It's like that with all this stuff. You know, everything the right talks about and claims of the left are doing, it's not like it requires some sort of conspiracy thinking. It's just all written down like this.

You just have to know where to find it. You're talking about an industry that is artistic, creative. I mean, I was in the music industry for years. Half of the people I knew who worked in the music industry were openly gay. They're going to push an agenda. And they're going to push their agenda. Do you think people in Hollywood writers, showrunners, they're not going to do the same exact thing? Even if it's not this concerted, you know, gigantic conspiracy, it doesn't have to be. There's enough of them

pushing it that it looks like a conspiracy. And then, you know, it just, it actually becomes one. It becomes something bigger than what they actually intended it to be. Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other.

When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Yeah, well, look what's happening with Turnip Seat right now. Oh, yeah.

It's basically the culmination. of that because his Lutheran church from what I understand is one of the only ones that's not completely run through by all this stuff yet and now they're they're finally getting there and that was like the whole point of his church right is it resisted what they're

describing here except actually now it hasn't right yes that's exactly what it is and like exposing hatred and inconsistency that inconsistency one is very important because right wingers people on the right who consider themselves to be on the

right. The most important thing for them is to be consistent. And that is used as a, it's to this day, you see it used as a weapon against them over and over again. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times, and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must set the mightier draw of science and public opinion, the shield and sword of that accursed secular humanism. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance

can work here at work again here yeah yeah i mean we've seen it the unholy alliance yeah we've seen it in the last 15 years where in 2008 um evangelicals or just no gay marriage no gay marriage no gay marriage slippery slope slippery slope and now it's the How many churches are actually even talking about gay marriage? Because they've pushed it so far beyond gay marriage now. They're not even thinking about where this started. And really, what it started with is this. It started with just the making it normal.

Making it just, hey, these are just other people. They just, you know, they like a different flavor of ice cream than I do. So step two in his plan is to portray. gaze as victims, not as aggressive challengers. I think just this title implies that they are aggressive challengers, that that is their goal. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straits will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented instead as a strong and

prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly when it conflicts with the gay victim message. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straits with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia, they're all around us on the other. Well, they've obviously stepped over that line at this point. So that's interesting because they,

that either indicates that they've basically gotten to the point where they think they've won or they have one or they just have lost control, but they're no longer doing that balance. They very clearly are just everywhere and exposing their power. you know the whole flashing at the White House thing um so yeah they've they've kind of gone out to balance here so that's interesting yeah their war flag has been raised yeah so a media campaign to promote the gay victim image should make use of symbols which reduced the mainstream sense of threat which lowers its guard and which enhanced the plausibility of

victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty moustachioed muscle men would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. In parentheses, it almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as Nambla, the North American man-boy love association must play no part at all in such a campaign suspected child molesters will never look like victims

all right not exactly a disavowal is it well when I read this that they had to include it yeah that they that they felt compelled to include it that yeah you're right that's an interesting point that they they think that nambla is a part of their thing otherwise why would you include it it's when i read that i was i was absolutely floored that that was that was included that

they felt like you know it's almost like this was an internal memo um because they put out on a gay web they put it out in a gay publication which i'm assuming you know the mainstream doesn't wouldn't read in 1987 but now we get to look back and you know when you read something like that you you must that raises a lot of questions all right now there are two different messages about the gay victim that are worth communicating first the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read, quote, as far as gays can tell, they were born gay. Just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or

athletic, nobody ever tricked or seduced them. They never made a choice and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary. It's only natural for them. The twist of fate could as easily have happened to you. This is really interesting because although they do go around manufacturing transsexuals now, the narrative is still always that they were born transsexual and you need to give them the hormones or whatever because they're being oppressed by biology or something. So even though they very clearly are manufacturing transsexuals, the messaging is still that they're victims of fate and you're basically like getting in the way of fate or something

like that. It's a weird metaphysical view for atheists to take. It's yeah and it's just so he says the message must read. It's

I mean they're basically when I read that when I read what's in the quotes there it's them or that whole paragraph is them saying no we've made a choice now this was a choice on our part. And the fact that it is, they're saying that it's a choice right after they mentioned Nambla is.

Yeah, because they don't really believe that it's fate in the way. It's describing there. They're just saying it's the message that that's what we're going to claim. Yeah. All right. Onward. Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say they are not like us. To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance. In a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straits we would like to reach. To return to the terms we have used in previous articles,

spokesmen for our cause must be our type straights rather than Q-type homosexuals. on display only under such conditions will the message be read correctly these folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me it it's

you know it's very much we've very much reached the point where that's just not a concern anymore and the the white house the

I don't know if they called if that's People's House or Congress, I don't know I hate civics, they host these people dressed as demons it's completely normal that is completely normal what seems to be odd what seems to be out of the ordinary now

is to meet a gay person who's actually you think, oh, that person's that person seems straight. Oh, they're gay? Well, that shocks. Yeah, that's the exception now. Like, to the point where I can recall

those quote-unquote straight gays that I've met in my life and they stand out as the odd ball because the homosexuals on display is just everything now. They're making no effort whatsoever to pretend to be like normal. Trying to figure out, see what it R-type straight. Yeah, I was wondering that, too. What is this R and Q type?

Never heard of that before. Well, I'm getting a exhaust pipe. That is sexual orientation. There's just a bunch of different terms here. Let me see. I think R-type is also like a reproductive strategy, isn't it? Dutton talks about this. Or maybe it's K, I don't remember.

Yeah, I'm not finding anything immediate. So we'll give the folks at home some homework to do on their own. Can you see what I'm sharing right now? I only see the article still. Okay. All right, let me get that up then. All righty. Okay.

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated victims. But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of the gay victim appeal under principle four, which we will get to. The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The story. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown. Graphic pictures of brutalized gaze, dramatizations of job and housing and security,

loss of child custody, and public humiliation. And the dismal list goes on. Well, this is just all not applicable anymore because, you know, now they're raising the flags in place of the Union Jack in Great Britain and raising the giant flag, the White House. So there's really no sense in which they're weak or, like, victims of society. I mean, they're clearly just running society now. So yet another place where, I mean, basically it seems like all of Step 2 can just be discarded because they've won to the point where sort of pretended to be weak is just no longer relevant. Right.

I think the reason I wanted to read this was to show people how we got to where we are. And also, there's propaganda in here that pretty much any. can use. Well, you can see the remnants of it, too. Like, you can see the remnants of step two in their behavior, even though it's obviously a lie. Like, they still pretend, like, they're victims, even though it's clearly not true. Correct.

Correct. Good point. All right. Step three. Give protectors a just cause. A media campaign that casts gays of society's victims and encourages straits to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness.

Few straight women, or even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. This is really good. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination at its theme. the right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process, and equal protection of laws. These should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

Yeah, well, this is still applicable because it's this same strategy that, you know, conservatives will argue against you, basically, if you try to make a cause for dismantling, like, the Civil Rights Act or something, because, Their reaction is, oh, well, if we take away these rights, you know, for gays, then, you know, my, my rights for free speech were also threatened. It's like if you, if you, it's this sort of reverse slippery slope argument where it's, it's like, if you take away the gays rights, then my rights are also under threat, even though there's like no, there's no evidence of that whatsoever. This is what I always encounter when sort of arguing, like, the trans issue with, with most people, it's like they, they, if, if you suggest that you can tell someone what to do in the privacy, their own home or whatever, just sort of attack the whole concept of trans rights or gay rights, then you're now threatening their freedoms to do

totally unrelated things. Right, and conservatives and con ink and the James Lindsay's of the world, they see the they see the taking away of these rights as a taking, how it

will affect everybody where, no, we're not seeking to take away the rights, we're seeking to take away privileges that they've gotten through these rights because there's no the civil rights didn't grant anyone rights they granted them privileges right and it's the whole concept is just not true i mean the yes we can take away the privileges without having any negative effect whatsoever on all the privileges of normal people correct yeah it's like what did they pass last year an anti-lynching law is that what isn't i'm sorry isn't that like anti-murder isn't that you know

you're not allowed to murder somebody what what is just ridiculous. All right. It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma. So defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principles.

Step 4. Make gays look good. In order to make a gay victim sympathetic to straits, you have to portray him as every man. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women. The campaigns should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know. This trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announced proudly. Did you know that this great man or woman was blank? But the message is vital for all those straits who still picture gays as queer people, shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits. the honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye-popping from from socrates to shakespeare from alexander the great to alexander hamilton that that answers a question i've had from michael angelo to walt whitman from sappho to gertrude

stein the list is as old as hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual america in no time a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western civilization. Along the same lines, we shouldn't overlook the celebrity endorsement. The celebrities can be straight. God bless you, Ed Asner, wherever you are, or gay. I'm not sure there's much to comment on here. I mean, it's, yeah, this is what they do.

Everything's superior if it's gay, right? Like, always highlight the gay people. even claim that these historical figures were gay when they weren't rewrite history well I mean we even saw someone like Steve Saylor trying to say that Ted Kaczynski was like Oh my God

that stuff is so annoying the whole actually Ted Kaczynski was a transsexual it's like shut up nerd just shut up yeah and fuck off seriously that stuff really pisses me off and somebody had commented saying that

I think it was on a YouTube video I had done that they saw something on TV the other day that they were claiming the DB Cooper you know the famous robber who jumped out of a plane and everything that was never found oh he was trans so like everybody's going to become trans now

they're going to look back in history and they're going to be like well this person was the reason DB Cooper got away is because he was trans and obviously he had to just dress like you know jumped out of the plane and then dressed like a woman. And that's how he got away. I mean, it's, uh, all right. Step five, make the victimizers look bad. At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, long after other gay ads had become commonplace, it will be time to get tough with remaining

opponents. This, this is for this time. And this is, uh, this is, uh, and take a look around you. To be blunt, they must be vilified. This will be all the more necessary because by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation. Our goal is here,

our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs discussed

Middle America. These images might include the Ku Klux Klan demanding the gays be burned alive or castrated. Bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. Menacing punk. thugs and convicts speaking coolly about the fags they have killed or would like to kill. A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies. Of course. But what else can we say?

The shoe fits. And we should make them try it on for size with all of America watching. yeah well i mean they don't even care either about what whether or not any of this is true obviously they're just gonna it's the same old thing just label you nazi whatever yeah the um i don't know how much of the the rest of the article we need to we need to read because a lot of it is about fundraising and although fundraising is really important in something that we should be studying Especially on the, especially on the right. Really in terms of learning, too.

I mean, we can clearly learn from this step right here where this is basically what we have to do to them and just flip the image back and, you know, show how degenerate and disgusting and gross they actually are, you know, both comical and deranged, as they say, menacing punk's thugs. I mean, that's what they literally are. I mean, if you read that sentence, comical and deranged, menacing, punks, thugs, and convicts, I mean, that's what they are. So that's the strategy. Yeah, it's, uh, let me see if I,

I think I have that over here. Yeah, the, um, so they like, so quickly, they say, um, solicit, funds. Any massive kind of campaign of this kind requires expenditures for months. One thing he says here, which is very interesting, is effective advertising is a cost proposition. Several

million dollars would get the ball rolling. There are 10 to 15 million primarily homosexual adults in this country. If each one of them donated just $2 to the campaign, its war chest would rival that of their most vocal enemies. I mean, that's, you know, that's, let's see,

in 35 years, that probably should be, um, probably 10 to 15 or 20 dollars now, considering inflation, but yeah, they don't even need that anymore anyway, because now they have a whole regime on their side.

But for us, I mean, part of the phase we need to get to is, and we're kind of doing it, obviously, organizations like the Old Glory Club, we have to get past the point of individual contributions, going to individual contributors, and start getting people donating to various organizations by formalizing our relationships because, you know, in our case, for one, not everyone is donating. And two, even if they do, the donations are getting spread out among individuals, which mostly just contributes to their personal projects and not the kind of initiative they're talking about here with advertising. But I do think we have the capacity to actually fundraise. But it's very much on our part on this side of things right now

to provide the organizational structure of people to donate to. Yeah. And also have a, like, what are we actually doing with the money, right? We need to have a reason for people to give us money at all. Well, yeah, I think that's one of the most important things is I think more and more people are starting to see the benefit. of local local activism

above all right now. I mean, no, doing it. To me, and people can contradict me on this, I'm fine with that. Any money that you're putting towards somebody who is running for a position

in Washington, D.C., you just flush that money down the toilet. Even if they get elected, they're not going to be able to do anything. at this point. I mean, we're not, we're not even at the point where a, you know,

people talk about the Red Caesar or the, the Protestant Franco, that's the one that's been going around lately. We're not at that point. And so concentrating at all on, on national politics to me is a mistake. I think what, what we should be doing is we should,

be getting experience in politics because I think a lot of a lot of us have not been in politics at the local level. Whether that be running for some kind of small office at the local level or volunteering time

with the local sheriff or the local school board or just going to, I remember Tho Bishop telling me, it was like five years ago or something like that, how he one guy who would just go, he had a Facebook page eventually got taken down, he would just go and film his local city council meetings. And then he would post it online and he would comment on it. He'd be like, okay, this, this is waste. What they're doing here is wasteful,

what they're doing here. And it drew a lot of attention and it caused a lot of change. Wow, that's really interesting. Yeah. So. That seems much more effective than actually trying to speak at the meetings. Yeah. Yeah. If you go in there and you can videotape the whole thing, the whole proceeding and then start, you know, go home, watch it, take notes and then do a video on it. I mean, that does a lot. And, you know, even if it doesn't help in your, even if you can't change anything locally to you, it's going to help somebody somewhere where they can, where they can have changed, have, have,

changed on locally. Maybe I'll start doing that. Yeah, I mean, I jumping right to national politics or even state level politics. I mean, state level politics is brutal. And I watched the state races here in Alabama last year. And, I mean, there were some, I mean, we knew pretty much everything was going to go

red because we're a super majority red state. But there were a couple of districts. that went blue, and just to watch the vitriol, you know, it'll teach you something. I think it's a lot easier locally and especially with, you know, if you're in a town that is a town of a thousand, honestly, how many people there are interested in local politics out of that thousand people? Not enough. I actually do go to my local city council meetings, and I think, you know, everyone should.

at least a couple, you know, once every few months if you can't go every single time. Yeah, yeah. And you can learn a lot about how politics, how politics works. And then, you know, you can move on from there. I'm not saying that everybody, you know, I never want to be an elected office ever. Maybe sheriff, I don't know, but that's really a joke. My wife would kill me. But I am willing, more than willing to provide anything, any help whatsoever, any of my research, how things have been done in the past, you know, exactly how much power of sheriff or a mayor of a locality has and work with them on it because, you know, I think there's a good chance that there are going to be a lot of localities where you're going to be overrun by the Fed.

You know, my friend Brandon is an elected. He's a councilman up in a small town in Indiana. And he's been, he just made one tweet that they, that some leftist didn't like in this really small town. And it wasn't even leftist inside the town. It was from the outside, people on the outside watching. And they just swooped in for the attack. And, I mean, just started calling all of his colleagues, you know, saying you need to disassociate from him. and then when they didn't do that they were like oh well he raped a girl in high school every single

time they i mean we'll bring that out you know yeah and something out yeah and anyone who's listening to this who thinks that you're going to have a convert you're going to have an honest conversation with the left just remember that just remember that it's always a false rape allegation it's always something they are going to do anything to destroy you. So you're going to have to destroy them first. That's, I think that's where we're at. I don't know about you, Charlie.

Yeah, no, I agree. We sort of touched this going over the article, but, you know, you can't really pretend like there's some sort of way to have a principal dialogue or anything like that with these people because they don't care about that, that whole process of, you know, debating and convincing and talking it over

only exists to make you lose. So you know, there's really nothing to do, but I would organize them and then try to exclude them from organizations. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. That's where we're at.

All right. Well, let's cut this one a lot shorter than the ones I've been doing lately, but I'm sure that some people will appreciate that. And I think we packed in a lot of information. So what do you got to plug, what should we talk about? Yep, I just wrote an article

for the old Glory Club on Ted Kaczynski on our blog, so check that out. Check out my YouTube channel, Charlemagne, as usual. I do have something scheduled coming up looking at some war games

that were sponsored by NBC regarding China, just trying to plan out a live stream on that, which should be really interesting. So that's upcoming. and yeah, that's all I got. I'll make sure to link to all that and remind people, yeah, about the Old Glory Club. I'm a member and actually tonight, I think Paul and I are going to stream and I'm going to do give my talk on Ted K and, you know, what his writings, the manifesto and various writings, what I think they mean and why people should read them. Thank you, Charles.

Appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for inviting me.