Month: January 2012

You Are Being Manipulated, Folks…

Dear Friends,

In mid-December, an article on the impact of Homosexual Infiltration in the New Zealand Defense Force.  Here is a followup article with the original article below.  You’ve seen the slippery slope of K-12 textbooks being rewritten to glorify this lifestyle to our young.  NAMBLA is already becoming more militant.  Where do YOU draw the line?  Time to stop saying, “Ewwww!” and time to start shining a light on this as it affects the future of our society.  Of course, this is already a slam-dunk in our military.  WOW… Didn’t see it coming…


P.S. Oh, I almost forgot, this IS one of the many tentacles of Fabian Socialism.

Further concerns about Homosexual Politics infiltrating the

New Zealand Defence Force

By Barbara Faithfull

In December 2011 I set out concerns which I had on the above subject, and with the sub-title “Cultural Subversion under guise of “Peer Support”. By e-mail it received limited distribution, including to quite a few  news media outlets, but with Christmas nigh, to date it has received no media attention.

That will, of course, be welcome news for the leading figures in the above pernicious escapade, which is set to be launched this month of January 2012. To briefly recap, there is to be set up in the NZ Defence  Force a “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender support group”, a daring event and highly covert if ever there was one.

Fronting this  unprecedented move is Air Force Flight Lieutenant (Flt/Lt) Stu Pearce, who would have one believe that his concern is no more than for the “wellbeing” of homosexual, bisexual and transgender service personnel, and of course with this  overlooking entirely the question of whether  such people should even be  serving in the force in the first place, and the  potentially dire ramifications this could have for military morale, discipline and efficiency etc.

Although conveniently reduced  there to the simplistic notion of “concern for their wellbeing”, the reality is that this threatens to be an issue  tantamount to the opening of Pandora’s Box and as such is riddled with deception and intrigue.

Deception and intrigue

After all, Pearce himself is not only a homosexual; wittingly or unwittingly he also will be a political activist for the leftist “gay” rights cause, more of which shortly. So the above reasoning he offers can only be a pretext for what is really intended with this move, and which – all else aside –  can only lead to horrendous new layers of stifling service bureaucracy.

Moreover, far from the impression being conveyed – of him just spontaneously expressing concern for the “wellbeing” of such service  personnel – there is every likelihood that he will have been scrupulously hand-picked as a respected authority figure to spearhead, and to afford an aura of credibility and respectability, to  what loom as revolutionary changes in the culture of the NZ Defence Force. They are changes, moreover, which  are required by NZ’s Human Rights Act of 1993. So these changes will have been long planned, and include copious directives for employers against “discrimination” of homosexual, bisexual and transgender employees.

Curiously, though,  the critical term “discrimination” remains ill-defined in a booklet Out at Work?, supposedly compiled to inform homosexuals of their “rights” in the workplace. For example, on page 2, under “Your right to an inclusive workplace – the law”, the first two mentions of the term are without any specific definition of the word at all, such as : “It is against the law in NZ to discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation” etc.

Then follows this cop out : “The definition of discrimination is wide. It also  includes practices that seem neutral but have a discriminatory impact.” etc. (emphasis added) (1) Produced by Full Spectrum Ltd., whose founder and director is longtime homosexual political activist Eugene Moore, in all probability he would have written that material.

He is also styled as, among other things, “an Auckland gender consultant”. As such he has been deeply involved for years providing “sexuality education” for, among others,  NZ military and law enforcement  agencies, including time with naval personnel at sea. All this,  presumably,  designed for NZ to meet its UN obligations  under the Human Rights Act 1993, although this is rarely, if ever, spelt out. While there is much more which calls for reporting about Moore and his activities, right now other matters are more pressing for our attention.

Communist influences

Earlier I described the “gay” rights cause as “leftist”. “Leftist?” does someone ask? Yes, leftist, and communist, not that evidence of this is readily available from our mainstream media which, after all, is mainly leftist also. In fact there seems to have long been a strict taboo about acknowledging the very existence of communism, let alone of its pernicious existence in our everyday lives.

After all, for many years there has been spread the false message that it is dead, when it is very much alive, and covertly operating to subvert all the institutions of Western society : the Church, the family, the Police and Justice systems, the education system etc.  – and also the military.

From the NZ perspective, to cite such evidence it helps to go back as far as the 1970’s, when the homosexual political movement was at least open and honest about its ideological thrust, which was anti-capitalist, clear and simple. Take this 1976 quote from a Christchurch group Gay Liberation Front: “On the one hand, we have written articles and position papers that…..denounce capitalism as the prime force in gay oppression, and refer to the need for a socialist society” etc.(2)

By 1979, also in Christchurch, homosexual teachers were  involved with the forming of the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC) and the insinuating into some local schools pernicious homosexual political propaganda entitled On Being Homosexual which included “eight advantages” of being homosexual.(3) Now, of course, they portray themselves as victims, and in need of “peer support groups”etc.

A key figure in such activism back then was homosexual activist teacher Robin Duff, of the NGRC executive, whose ongoing activism through the years seems to have been no handicap to his career path, with him currently being President of the NZ Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA). On 29th March 2008, for example, TV3 News featured him supposedly “fighting bullying”. He was “sick of seeing staff and students ‘unsafe’ at school” he declared. Present day, of course, while acknowledging that genuine bullying is a serious problem, it  is also an in-vogue cover for homosexual political activism.

Also in 1979, on 27th June at the University of Auckland, I attended  a strident, no-holds-barred, in-your-face homosexual political forum. Guest speaker was Felix Donnelly, Catholic renegade priest, University lecturer, youth worker, author, Radio Pacific talkback host – and destined to be for the next 20 years – and dedicated crusader for the homosexual political cause and all similarly-aligned issues.

Chairing the event was homosexual activist Dr. Ian Scott, Northern Representative of the NGRC and a member of the Board of the newly-launched Radio Pacific. Just one memorable and highly revealing quote from Scott : “We are about a revolution, and it is the Patricia Bartletts who recognize this!” (At that time she being a campaigner on moral/social issues)

On 25th August 1980  the revolutionary nature of such activism was spelt out in a Radio NZ Checkpoint programme  by Dr. Keith Ovenden, a political science senior lecturer at Canterbury University. In discussing the Trotskyist Communist group Socialist Action League (S.A.L.) he remarked : “(they) have bizarre issues : race relations, homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights etc.”(4)

With the decline of the Cold War in the 1990’s came the spreading of the  false message that communism was dead, not least by the likes of Felix Donnelly on Radio Pacific. Many were thus duped, but a glance at communist literature of that time was proof positive that it was indeed still very much alive and well, such as this from the Auckland Socialist Workers’ Organisation (SWO) : “ Liberation from oppression : “We fight for democratic rights. We oppose the oppression of women, Maori, Pacific Islanders, lesbians and gays…Their liberation is essential to socialist revolution and impossible without it.” (5)

While the communist SWO has now evolved into Socialist Worker (Aotearoa) its rabid pursuit of all those issues is as strong as ever, as shown in their ten-point programme currently available in Unity on  To quote No. 6 :-

“The history of capitalism is marked by the systematic oppression of indigenous peoples, workers, ethnic minorities, women and non-heterosexuals” etc. Also:-

“…..women, whose second-class status to this day is measured by…restrictions on abortion rights and a lack of state support for child rearers. The same ‘family values’ scourge also hit people who didn’t (sic) neatly fit into the heterosexual category, and to this day lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people face pervasive discrimination despite legal near-equality…”etc.

Another view : ramifications of communism on present-day society

Ten years ago far more comprehensive evidence of the communist influence behind those issues was presented in an article by Canadian author and “student of gender” Henry Makow Ph.D.  While covering the North American scene, much of  it seems broadly applicable to other Western nations also, including NZ, and is entitled American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation (6) Some quotes :-

“In a new book Red Feminism : American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand…..has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism….(It) pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of women’s oppression….Communists pioneered women’s studies and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children’s rights……The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether.

“Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain :-

*Why they want revolution….and have a messianic vision of a genderless utopia.

*Why they don’t believe in free speech, refuse to debate and suppress dissenting views etc.

“It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The ‘diversity’ and ‘multicultural’ movements represent feminism’s attempt to forge ‘allegiances’ by empowering gays and ‘people of colour’. Thus the original CPUSA (7) trio of race, gender and class is very much intact, but  class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilisation that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes).

“Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary). They believe in using these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.[emphasis added]

The scourge of political correctness

“The term ‘politically correct’ (PC) originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920’s. We use it every day to refer to adherence to feminist dogma…..

“Rituals of denunciation and recantation typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution (for the ‘sin’ of ‘sexism/racism’) have become commonplace in America. They are ‘showpieces’ designed to frighten everyone into conforming to PC. We have ‘diversity officers’ and ‘human rights commissions’ and ‘sensitivity training’, all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about ‘discrimination’ but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. ‘Sexual harassment’ is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies…..” (emphasis added)

Makow concludes : “Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.”

Such an “assumed name” could well be that of the United Nations, whose tyrannical dictates via the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 are being covertly executed under guise of a need for NZ Defence Force homosexual “peer support groups”, but threatening to subvert the very culture of the  military in the process.

Moreover, and unsurprisingly, NZ’s mainly leftist news media is utterly silent on this whole dastardly affair.

Barbara Faithfull B.A. (Psych.Anthr.)

6th January 2012


1.        Out at Work? Understanding your rights to an inclusive workplace. Produced by Full Spectrum Ltd., P.O.Box 5255 Wellesley St., Auckland. Dated 2000 or later.

2.        In Gay Liberation Front’s aequus, May 1976, Vol. 3, No. 4, page 2.

3.        As reported in the April/May 1979 newsletter of the (then) Concerned Parents’ Association, Christchurch.

4.        The S.A.L. has since been renamed Communist League.

5.        Under “Where We Stand”, the Auckland Socialist Workers’ Organisation publication Socialist Worker, 5th May 1998.

6.        In 3rd October 2001 but access now problematic.

7.        Communist Party U.S.A.



Homosexual Politics infiltrate New Zealand Defence Force :

Cultural Subversion under guise of “Peer Support”

By Barbara Faithfull

The Christmas 2011 “silly season” is upon us, and not for the first time NZ is dumped with an issue of gigantuan proportions, debate about which seems destined to conveniently slither under the radar until  it is too late for public debate and protest.

NZ’s already burgeoning bureaucracy is set to further escalate with news of a homosexual political coup affecting the whole of the country’s  Defence Force – Army, Navy and Air Force – and inevitably wider society also, if not even our national security.

On 6th December Radio NZ News reported :

            “The NZ Defence Force is to set up a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender support group, to be launched in January. NZ is one of very few countries around the world to do so….and other organizations say it is leading the way.”

However, to say “other organizations” was facile to say the least, because they were merely homosexual interest groups predictably championing their own cause. One was  Chief Petty Officer Stuart O’Brien, chairman of the Australian Defence Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Information Service. Others were listed that day on Yahoo News under “Gay support group for NZ military praised”. The Radio NZ report continued:-

            “Stu Pearce is an openly gay Flight Lieutenant (Flt.Lt.) in the Royal NZ Air Force (RNZAF) and part of the group’s management team. He says it is a significant step for the Defence Force, which he describes as a conservative organization, despite lifting a ban on openly homosexual people in 1993. (Emphasis added)  ‘It is important to have a support group’..

            “He estimates between 5-7% of force personnel are gay, and says they are still going to operate under a self-inflicted ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, which can cause anxiety. He says although in the main the Air Force and the Defence Force  are very supportive, ‘There is still work to be done in order to address some of those concerns and anxieties and worries that LGBT people face on a daily basis.’”

Hardly convincing justification for the  earth-shattering changes being sought, and  to services which, after all, homosexuals volunteer, to enter. As for that “5-7%” figure, which went entirely unchallenged or  even questioned,  and with  no source whatsoever for it supplied by Pearce,  it can be  safely assumed to be no more than a further  example of such activists quoting bogus figures simply for political expediency.

On 6th December there was also a report on that “The peer support networking group to support LGBT personnel has been approved by the Defence Force Chief”, although he was not named. (but see below) Also this astonishing bit of information :-

            “The network will allow meetings during work time, resources to publish newsletters, maintain a resourse page on the internal NZDF intranet, and conduct meetings using video telephone conferencing equipment.” Also this disconcerting news : “The decision also includes the establishing of networking groups for other minority groups within the NZDF”. (emphasis added)

All this for the supposed “wellbeing” of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people and transsexuals who, after all, choose to enlist. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that paedophile activists will in time  be included also. After all powerful groups already lobby for them overseas, such as the North American Man Boy Love  Association (NAMBLA), and NZ has already  had an Aotearoa Man Boy Love Association (AMBLA – currently defunct).

Little specific information

The reporting of this quite extraordinary turn of events is curiously short on information about key players in it. For example, it is difficult to locate any information about Flt.Lt. Pearce and his place as a homosexual commissioned officer in the RNZAF. Nor was there any naming of the Defence Force Chief who, since earlier in 2011, has been  Major General Rhys Jones of the NZ Army. This post of Defence Chief was previously held by NZ’s new Governor General, Sir Jerry Mataparae.

However a year ago, on 7th December 2010,  the N.Z.Herald did announce that coming changeover in posts, with the news that Major General Jones, the new Defence Chief,  “Will face the task of cutting $400M a year from defence spending”. That would seem a faint hope with this shock announcement.

Further  from that flagrantly one-sided Radio NZ report of 6th December 2011 was a quote from the former Chief of NZ Army, Lou Gardiner. The impression conveyed was that he was utterly relaxed about such an earth-shattering event. In his 37 years’ service he saw “a considerable amount of tolerance, and that’s what it’s about.” Oh yes? If only it was so simple, so harmless and so uncomplicated.


The duplicity surrounding this most daring escapade I find quite staggering, but nevertheless simply typical of such activism. So NZ is “one of very few countries around the world to do so”? No report that I have seen of this matter names even one! Then we are  told that “NZ leads the way”, which is probably more accurate, yet  even then, only through sheer deception. As for public debate, there just isn’t any. It has been shut down, muzzled, made an impossibility, until the Christmas “silly season” is over and  the  January 2012 launch of the initiative is complete.

Interestingly enough,  nor is there very much  general NZ  news media coverage about overseas homosexual political activism, especially for example of that in the U.S.A., which lags very much behind  the huge advances made by the NZ homosexual lobby, but which, unlike in NZ,  is widely debated. Such lack of NZ coverage seems a deliberate move so as not to disadvantage NZ activists as they push for ever greater political advances, even as they  pretend to be so far behind the rest of the world.  While in NZ we do read/hear of  U.S.A. activism regarding marriage, etc. it is generally quite selective.  For example, it is rare  here, in a land which has allowed homosexuals in the military since 1993, to have reports about the push to allow open homosexuals in the U.S.A. services.

Over there it is still a thorny issue, and fiercely opposed by concerned conservative organizations. So much for N.Z. being forced to remove such a ban in 1993 because of its amended Human Rights Act. Now we are confronted with a further, quite revolutionary demand for “rights” in the military; a lesson the U.S.A. might care to take from this sorry state of affairs. Yet we might also learn some lessons from their public debates on the matter of homosexual activism in general.

Two conservative  organizations so involved are the Culture and Media Institute (Robert Knight) and Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (Elaine Donnelly) at the following websites:-

Over a year ago Elaine Donnelly, described on the above second-mentioned website (23rd November 2010) as “the leading proponent of maintaining the military common-sense ban on homosexuality”, was warning against “debilitating politically correct agendas in the armed forces.” Among others she then covered the following :-

  • The unforeseen harm to good order and discipline that would result from allowing open homosexuals in the military,
  • How pro-homosexual diversity sessions and policies would be foisted on the conservative military culture to enforce sexual orientation non-discrimination.
  • How religious service members and chaplains who opposed homosexuality as a matter of faith and conscience could be targeted for disciplinary action in a homosexual-affirming military, especially if their opposition were to become public. Etc.

There are surely lessons there for us in NZ as we are confronted with this latest  daring episode of homosexual political activism.  The above references to Robert Knight include his 2008 report on the gruelling  experience, including insults, of Elaine Donnelly at Congress, when testifying before a House sub-committee in support of the military’s ban on homosexuals.

Another U.S.A. media outlet frankly confronting such issues is On 28th May 2010 journalist Cliff Kincaid wrote the following under the grim heading “Saving Soldiers from Gay Death” :-

            “There is a simple reason why the gay rights lobby is trying to rush through repeal of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy. They know  that a comprehensive review of a proposed change would disclose the substantial evidence that admission of open and active homosexuals would put our troops in further danger through exposure to tainted blood. In fact, evidence to this effect is already in the hands of top military commanders and Pentagon officers……

            “The gay rights lobby is labelling as ‘offensive’ a new video that exposes homosexual. misconduct in the Armed Forces, and wants it taken down from YouTube. Their desperation is being guided by the realization that male homosexual conduct is directly linked to tainted blood and deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and that no cure or vaccine has yet been found.” Etc.

A year later, on 21st May 2011, and also on, attorney Rees Lloyd commented on a recent homosexual lobby success under the Obama Administration, entitled “New Navy Homosexual Love Boat to be named for Cesar Chavez?”, deeming this an insult and not a tribute as had been claimed :-

            “The New U.S. Navy is being ‘transformed’ by Obama through the new politically correct post-Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy embracing open homosexuality on what were formerly warships, even to the point of the New Navy having announced that Navy chaplains would perform pseudo marriage ceremonies for homosexuals in Navy chapels – quickly ‘suspended’ (not withdrawn) – following a national outcry.”etc.

Another worrying and highly revealing matter has been the well-publicised case of the treasonous U.S.A. homosexual serviceman Bradley Manning of the WikiLeaks saga. A year ago (7th December 2010) on RightlyConcerned, a website project of the American Family Association ( came comment from one Bryan Fischer, headed “Julian Assange not the bad guy here – the homosexual soldier is”. In part it read :-

            “The out-of-the-mainstream media has collaboratively kept the focus on the sex criminal Julian Assange, and off the guy who has committed actual treason, the homosexual soldier Bradley Manning…(He) sold out his country in what may turn out to be a fit of  gay pique….he is a one man argument for keeping open homosexuals from serving in the military in the first place.”


Inevitably there will be the usual  trite and deceitful  “gay bashing” homosexual lobby response to what is discussed here. Yet such concerns focus only on the activities of political homosexuals and  the undermining of culture which such activism inevitably brings,  and not on  homosexuals per se, so such criticism  is far from being valid or fair. There again, for such activists as these, confusion and manipulation of public opinion are all-important parts of their battle strategy, along with the presenting of a benign and kindly front.

It is only by closely scrutinising their underlying, laboriously-concealed ideology – atheistic, leftist, anti-authority and all traditional values –  as well as their true long-term goals, that one is able to see through their elaborate pretences and subterfuge, and  recognise their true colours. Such is the Pandora’s Box, the can of worms,  with which the NZ Defence Force is being   saddled : beguiled by the sophistry of the likes of homosexual political activist Flt.Lt. Stuart Pearce – who holds a Queen’s commission,  no less –  and his fellow travellers.

The result is confidence trickery of the highest order, which even top Defence personnel seem incapable of grasping;  that the true, long-term goal of such activism will be to destabilize the legitimate authority of all traditional institutions of Western society, in this particular case of NZ’s Defence Forces.

As an ex-servicewoman (WAAF) ny personal reaction to this issue was summarised in a comment I posted on the website on 8th December :-

            “An appallingly retrograde step, riddled with deception. It has the potential to be deeply divisive and to undermine morale and military discipline. The leftist ideological belief system underlying homosexual political activism is the very antithesis of the Godly belief system which presently honours God, the Queen and the country.”

So although the “silly season” may be upon us, I trust that there may still surface some vestige of public discussion, if not even debate, about this  vital issue,  before it is too  late to do so. With that faint hope I wish those reading this a merry Christmas.

Barbara Faithfull  B.A. (Psych.Anthr,)

13th December 2011