Your Kids, Their Lab Rats

gay ratAs expected, the so-called independent review of the Safe Schools Coalition program has proved to be a whitewash that opens the way for the compulsory application of the program in schools around Australia. The academic chosen to conduct the two-week review, University of Western Australia Emeritus Professor Bill Louden, has confirmed that only schools in moderate Melbourne suburbs were reviewed, leaving unexplored the mass of highly controversial material both contained in, and associated with, the program that drew widespread criticism in the first place. The only ray of hope, it seems, is that a remnant of the conservative and responsible wing of the Coalition will intervene at the last moment to defund the program before any further damage is done.

Meanwhile, it has been alleged in federal Parliament that Gary Dowsett, the deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at LaTrobe University, where the Safe Schools program originated, advocated a favourable view of paedophilia in an article published in 1982, when Dowsett was a school teacher (“Irate MPs plan Safe Schools rumble”, The Australian, 17/3). The article, published in Gay Information, identified three principal political objectives for paedophiles: winning custody rights over children for gay men and lesbians; ensuring the legal “rights” of paedophiles and their young lovers; and establishing the sexual rights of children. It sought to draw a comparison between the “sexual responses” of parents for their children and “the love of a paedophile and his/her [young] lover”. The article declared that

the current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement; paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.

It appears to be little doubt that the Safe Schools program has succeeded in doing just that, presenting a radical LGBTI propaganda campaign as an innocuous ‘anti-bullying’ initiative. In doing so, they have achieved an objective first articulated nearly 40 years ago.

In the mid-1970s, the infamous North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was established (provoking  Anita Bryant’s 1977 ‘Save Our Children’ campaign). At its height it attracted many supporters in Australia, especially on the far-left. NAMBLA denounced “the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships” and its chief objective was to abolish age-of-consent laws that criminalized adult sexual involvement with minors. It sought to align itself with the gay and lesbian movement and waged a vigorous propaganda campaign to associate paedophilia with leftist notions of liberation.

NAMBLA’s co-founder was David Thorstad, a self-described bisexual pederast and atheist. An historian and far-left American political activist, Thorstad was a member of the Socialist Workers Party and president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance. He played a major role in convincing the far-left that advocacy for homosexuality and paedophilia was a legitimate area of political activism. He was the author or translator of many works promoting gay rights and revolutionary politics. These include Man/Boy Love and the American Gay Movement; Gay Liberation and Socialism; Pederasty and Homosexuality; Homosexuality and the American Left; The Early Homosexual Rights Movement; and The Leninist Theory of Organization.

Thorstad saw himself as a member of an oppressed minority and compared his experience as a pederast in America to being “a Jew in Nazi Germany”. He also denounced “child-abuse hysteria [as] an industry of insanity aimed at homosexuals”. He was very influential in Australia at a time when the left was also utterly in thrall to the flamboyantly gay French philosopher and historian, Michel Foucault, with whom Thorstad was associated and who died of AIDS in 1984 .

This disclosure about Dowsett is just one more revelation about an extremist propaganda program that should never have passed muster in the first place. The constant, ruthless and cynical assaults on the traditional institution of marriage and the concerted campaign by LGBTI activists to gain access to 11- and 12-year-old schoolchildren, allegedly to ‘prevent bullying’, must be brought to an end. Bullying is lamentable, but it can be dealt with in a common-sense fashion without institutionalizing an extremist sexual and political ideology.

In their relentless campaign to legitimize their lifestyle, same-sex marriage proponents and LGBTI activists and their supporters (especially including gutless politicians) are treating ordinary folk like lab rats. The overall strategy is obvious: mainstream Australians are to be prodded and poked and given no respite. Constant shocks are applied to make them run this way and that way through an endless maze of propaganda and misinformation until they’re all exhausted and driven up against the wall and forced to make the decisions the SSM and LGBTI lobbies demand.

Both lobbies see mainstream heterosexual folk as little more than anonymous vermin whose ‘heteronormativity’ threatens their promised paradise where ‘polymorphous perversity’ reigns supreme as promoted by their neo-Marxist libertine heroes, Herbert Marcuse and Foucault. As Roz Ward, the architect of the Safe Schools program, declared in her address to the 2015 Marxism Conference:

Marxism offers the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today.

In this brave new LGBTI world of orifice politics (described in detail in the Safe Schools’ associated programs), while ‘bodies blossom in extraordinary new and amazing ways’ all the heterosexual drones are good for, it seems, is for working, raising families, and providing a continual supply of children to be carefully confused, groomed, and exploited by LGBTI operatives seeking converts.

The SSM and LGBTI assaults are following each other relentlessly. In only the past few weeks we have learnt that hard-left Marxist ideologues have devised the Orwellian-named Safe Schools campaign, allegedly to combat bullying in schools, but really to push a radical political agenda with sexual libertinism in the vanguard. Carefully devised by neo-Marxist radicals, it empowers LGTBTI operatives to inflict a compulsory propaganda campaign on vulnerable, pubescent pre-teen children conveniently corralled in the nation’s schools. As the doyen of Australian journalists, Paul Kelly, observes

This is much more than an anti-bullying program. Most people know an anti-bullying program when they see it. But this is something else — a pervasive and radical ideological agenda. Indeed, it does not even pretend to be anything less.

Then we discover that this program is well-established and has been funded by state and federal governments, without even the slightest gesture to measure or obtain any indication of the level of community or parental support for this most intimate form of intervention in young peoples’ lives.

After those revelations, we find that a similar program is to be implemented in the childcare system, when children barely out of nappies are to be programed for ‘gender sensitivity’ and taught to cross-dress and allowed to wander in and out of toilets in the name of sexual and gender diversity. And all the time a compliant media led by the ABC and Fairfax pumps out an endless stream of invective directed at anyone who dares to object at this rampaging SSM and LGBTI social engineering.

And just yesterday it emerged (“Sexual preference a no-go zone”, The Australian, 16/3) that university researchers conducting a taxpayer-funded Australian Research Council survey were filled with indignation when education department officials refused to allow them to ask 13-year-old school students if they were straight, gay, transgender, or intersex.  This sensible precaution, the researchers complained,

compromised our attempt to disrupt the heteronormative and cisgender [sic] bias inherent in most approaches to sexuality and relationships education.

As this outburst reveals, these academics are primarily activists, not researchers. They are not seeking to carry out objective social research, but are seeking instead to infiltrate the education system to promote radical social change.

Another recent assault in the propaganda war, an excellent example of the contempt in which the SSM lobby holds the mainstream of the Australian population, is the outrageous claim made by the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers that the plebiscite on same-sex marriage will cost $525 million dollars and that, therefore, it shouldn’t go ahead in a time of fiscal constraint. This absurd claim was duly broadcast by the ABC and the Fairfax media without even a hint of scepticism at the report’s ridiculous methodology and assumptions, including that voting (on a Saturday) can be costed at $17.29 per person per hour — a purportedly staggering $281 million cost to the economy. To this is added an estimated $20 million to account for the cost of the “mental anguish” suffered by SSM enthusiasts because the issue is to be put to a democratic vote.

The blatant hypocrisy and opportunism of this tactic is obvious, as the LGBTI lobby wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to demand such a plebiscite (whatever the cost) if they thought they could win and impose same-sex marriage on Australia. The only reason they oppose it is because they are fearful that the lab rats may rebel if given a vote and reject the SSM makeover of the institutional foundation of civilization. The operatives know it is much easier for them to manipulate and intimidate a bunch of cowardly politicians.

Consequently, they have connived with PwC (which prides itself as “Australia’s top LGBTI employer in 2015”) to concoct a report that justifies a scare campaign designed to create a sufficient groundswell of  alleged “public opinion” to allow Malcolm Turnbull to renege on his promise to hold the plebiscite — a promise made to placate conservatives when he carried out his coup. In this manoeuvring he is being assisted by leading Victorian Liberal and former premier Jeff Kennett, who, as the Gay News Network enthuses, “has penned his support for same-sex marriage and the anti-bullying program Safe Schools in a lengthy opinion piece in the Herald Sun”. Naturally, Kennett (who cites the PwC report) ridicules the planned plebiscite as an “abject waste of public money”.

It seems the Labor government of current Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, and especially his Minister for Education, appear to have been made an offer they couldn’t refuse. After the controversy over the Safe Schools program erupted, the Deputy Premier and Education Minister, James Merlino, appeared to back away from it, declaring

The program is not mandatory but strongly encouraged by the government.


A spokesman for … Merlino repeatedly told The Age it was no longer mandatory for state high schools to sign up to the program.

Shortly thereafter, however, the fix was in

The government issued a correction to its own advice on Monday evening, saying that it was still compulsory for all state schools to sign up for Safe Schools by the end of 2018.

In fact, an extra $1.04 million is now to be given to the Safe Schools Coalition in Victoria to “expand its program into every Victorian government secondary school”.

After this fiasco, there followed an extraordinary profile of Merlino in The Age, explaining how the once socially conservative Deputy Premier has had a ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion to SSM and LGBTI orthodoxy:

[Merlino] is the most senior minister linked to the Catholic-led ‘shoppies’ union – the socially conservative SDA [ – and] his past position on gay marriage (placed on the record several times) has been at odds with many of his colleagues and appeared inconsistent with Daniel Andrews’ broader equality agenda.


After years of holding the firm belief that marriage should remain ‘a union between a man and woman’ Mr Merlino has come to the conclusion that it’s time – time for the law to be rewritten, time for gay couples to have equal rights, time for Australia to stop sitting on the wrong side of history.

As this and the other examples illustrate, it is very difficult not to conclude that the SSM and LGBTI lobbies are capable of applying extreme force to politicians and opinion-shapers in Australia. Moreover, that they will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. In addition to this high level political and corporate leverage, there will be enormous funding made available for the ‘Yes’ campaign in the SSM plebiscite, much of it from overseas. There will also be a very carefully choreographed attempt to subvert the entire process by rigging the plebiscite questions and denying adequate funding for the ‘No’ campaign. Count on it.

Overall, as Miranda Devine points out (“Political, Woeful, Cynical”, Daily Telegraph, 16/3), “make no mistake, the establishment is backing change” in these areas, apparently to avoid political and commercial sabotage and expensive ‘pink-mail’ by SSM and LGBTI operatives, and to cash in on the inevitable government largesse that will flow to an already financially flush LGBTI community following their successful subversion of Australian society.

The irony of all this is that, despite the high-profile support provided by the political and corporate establishment, leading figures in the SSM and LGBTI campaigns insist on portraying their efforts as a revolutionary attack on capitalism and the ‘heteronormative patriarchy’ of modern Australian society. This was made clear by Ward in her address to her Marxists:

LBGTI oppression and hetronormativity are woven into the fabric of capitalism […] This push to fit people into these physical and social gender constructs that promote heterosexuality is still incredibly strong and reinforced through the judicial system, through the medical, you know, all of medicine, the media and all social institutions.

Chief amongst this system of exploitation is the family, which is the principal building block of capitalist oppression, as Ward explains:

Homophobia and transphobia both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families, where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units.

Apparently, “liberation” involves escaping from those “small social units and families”. The new and aggressive orifice politics of liberation, according to this hard-left LGBTI and SSM ideology, therefore involves overthrowing capitalism by destroying the traditional family and the ‘heteronormative’ and ‘cisgender’ assumptions about sexuality and gender upon which it is allegedly built, with a view to opening up a world “where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways”, involving a great many lewd devices and techniques easily found on the internet.

Why should Australian families have to put up with this propaganda, the sexual and revolutionary fantasies of far-left ideologues? Why should they have to worry when they send their 11- and 12-year children to school, that they will be exposed to fiercely committed LGBTI operatives anxious only to impose their minority and highly contested view of sexuality on extremely vulnerable and suggestible minds? Why should they have to worry that SSM proponents will use their newly achieved status to persecute and prosecute individuals and institutions in the manner already road-tested in cases involving Section 18C?

Why, given the concerted nature of these twin campaigns, are ordinary folk not being protected by their elected representatives? Hopefully, as present events reveal, there are some politicians  who yet remain in federal parliament possessed of common sense and the determination to halt a far-left ideological juggernaut before any further harm can be done.

15 thoughts on “Your Kids, Their Lab Rats

  • gary@feraltek.com.au says:

    It doesn’t measure up as part of the government programme to guide students and teachers in handling bullying. THink of a few scenarios that could occur to see the type of suggestions it has on their website.

    1 – A couple of students known by their friends to be non-hetero, have been bullying another non-hetero student who keeps it a secret, accusing him of cowardice. What resource does the website have to assist a teacher? Nothing, or if there’s something it’s too difficult to find.

    2 – A non-hetero student comes on too strongly to a hetero student and doesn’t drop her sexual advances when told “no”. What guidance is there for the hetero student, to stop the advances in a non-aggressive and non-condemning way, or for a teacher to assist? Again, couldn’t find anything.

    Instead it’s full of “isn’t it lovely being like this and why does no-one support me”. It’s not a guide to stop bullying.

  • Patrick McCauley says:

    Where are theTeacher Unions in all of this ? I’ll bet they they all do back this program …. and put themselves up as ‘experts’ who know what’s best for children (over and above parents) Teachers are overwhelmingly women and overwhelmingly left wing … they will claim the right to institute this program because they believe that gender is ‘socially constructed’ ,,, and they are the ones to construct it. There is a powerful Gay and Gay friendly left wing cohort that has held power in Victorian Teacher Unions and the Teaching profession in general, since the 1970’s. Safe Schools is supported and funded by the State Teacher Unions throughout the country. This gender debate must be had out in the open … in an academically level playing field (somehow) … and not be allowed to decend into such Machiavellian tactics and subterfuges as to be compulsorily instituted without notice. For me … this is the line in the sand ( as Merv Bendle has been tirelessly pointing out)

  • Ryan says:

    So the Victorian government will roll out the program to ALL government schools? Even, you know, those in ‘diverse’ postcodes? I suspect teachers in said postcodes would require security guards to be protected from parents who have not property assimilated. Alas, it is tremendously sad that an argument against the pro-homosexual indoctrination of children relies on either allying or hiding behind those who also despise western civilisation. Perhaps folks with a turn-the-other-cheek orientation will not be so disposed upon hearing their pre-teen offspring arriving home from school one day extolling the virtues of all things LGBTIQetc at the dinner table.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    Roz Ward says: “This push to fit people into these physical and social gender constructs that promote heterosexuality is still incredibly strong and reinforced through the judicial system, through the medical, you know, all of medicine, the media and all social institutions.” One can barely resist screaming at her: “Not only that but NATURE also unequivocally reinforces the primacy of heterosexuality.” Or hasn’t the imbecilic woman noticed?

    • Tezza says:

      I’d be a bit cautious about branding Roz Ward a “woman” – that comes across as a bit heteronormative.

      My favourite bit from the “Safe Schools” resource on Gender Questioning is the alleged quote on page 1 attributed to a child of unspecified gender and age: “When I was little, I though I would grow up to look just like my dad. I didn’t: everyone says I look just like my mum.”

      I assume the purpose of this “quote” is to make every child who bears some resemblance to their opposite sex parent engage in questioning their gender, pondering “gender fluidity” and so on.

      This Safe Schools mob are really off. I pity the poor gays and lesbians whose cause has been captured by these new left queer lobbyists.

    • ian.macdougall says:


      …NATURE also unequivocally reinforces the primacy of heterosexuality.

      Could not agree more, and for obvious neo-Darwinian reasons.
      Across the Kingdom Animalia, and including our own species, individuals are geared up neurologically and biochemically to respond differently to sexual advances from members of their own sex, as against those from the opposite sex. Those individuals which are innately disinclined to ‘heteronormative’ behaviour tend to pass on their genes to smaller numbers of progeny than do those inclined that way.
      Sex was invented by the bacteria. It was so early in the story of biological evolution, apparently because of the enormous evolutionary advantage it confers on those species which possess it. (Some modern species eg the Lombardy poplar Populus nigra no longer have male and female individuals or ‘maleness’ vs ‘femaleness’, and for that reason are arguably on a short road to extinction.
      Likewise, homosexuality is known in both captive and wild animal populations. However, before the Roz Wards of the world get too excited about it, it would have to be disentangled from phenomena like imprinting and the conditions experienced by captive populations.

  • ArthurB says:

    It is obvious that the radical left intends to impose its version of reality on our nation, beginning with children, the most malleable section of society. The Left has captured the ABC and the teachers’ unions, so they will not oppose the program, in fact I am sure that there will be some well-organised ambushes on Q & A of any conservative on the panel who speaks out against the program.
    I have a question: will the Safe Schools program be imposed on Islamic schools? I look forward to Roz Ward and her fellow activists visiting mosques and Islamic schools, and telling the Muslims of our nation what they have to teach their children. I am sure Roz et al will get a warm welcome, after all, we know that Islam is a religion of peace, and that there is no homophobia among Muslims.

  • Lawrie Ayres says:

    Our politicians are failing in their duty to defend the foundation stone of every successful society, the family. History shows that governments that destroy families, the Nazis, Communists, are themselves eventually destroyed but only after terrible human suffering. Andrews is a communist and we know that communists are poor learners. If the adage of doing the same thing but expecting different results is a sign of madness then Andrews and the socialist left in this country are definitely mad and we, the sane will pay the price.

  • Geoffrey Luck says:

    If this programme goes ahead, in spite of all the warnings, including the federal parliamentary petition, there will be nothing left for it but to start burning down complying schools.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Lenore Taylor has made an interesting observation:

    Here’s a curious thing.
    February was not the first time Coalition parliamentarians raised objections to the Safe Schools program in their party room. But when Nationals Barry O’Sullivan and George Christensen and Liberal Cory Bernardi previously waved Safe Schools material around in the closed-door meeting and said they couldn’t believe it was being federally-funded, Tony Abbott was prime minister. The then education minister, Christopher Pyne, dismissed the call, saying the government didn’t as a rule trash funding agreements already in place. And nothing more was said.

    Bernardi, O’Sullivan and Christensen in that context were on the extreme right (as ever) while Abbott was in the centre. For a relativist like Abbott, that was clearly no problem. (To lie, or not to lie? Depends on the circumstances: particularly what direction it moves you relative to the top of the Parliamentary Pile.)

  • pgang says:

    Secular humanism, that perverse child of the Enlightenment, has no answer to any of this.

  • gary@feraltek.com.au says:

    Related to this, here’s a range of blog comments with samples of phrases useful for bullies – “idiotic demands of these whackjobs”, “Bigoted … lunatic fringe”, “the loonies”, “nut-jobs”, “instinctive bullies”, “moral derangement, wilful ignorance and inherent intolerance and viciousness”, “toxic spew”. But don’t worry, it’s ok because it’s from the intelligent academic sector of our society.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    Just two unequivocal questions. One rhetorical, the other addressed to the Gay community.

    How did we get from poofter bashing, through benign accepting, then exaltation of homosexuality, to gay supremacy, in little more than a single generation?

    When homosexuals proclaim: “I am gay and proud of it!” what exactly of their sexuality are they proud of, given that pride understood to derive from some meritorious accomplishment?

Leave a Reply