Friday, December 3, 2010

Angry gay activist behind WikiLeaks treachery

Below is an excerpt from an email that was sent to a friend who is involved investigations exposing the corruption that homosexual activism on society. He goes by the pseudonym of Solid Snake undoubtedly because homosexual political clout is strong in his local venue.

The excerpt is from which was originally delivered as a five point update to its mailing list. The excerpt I will be using focuses on the homosexual traitor Bradley Manning and his involvement with WikiLeaks. At the end of point one was a recommended link to read from bringing more light about how homosexuality has the potential to corrupt government and the military.

JRH 12/3/10
Angry gay activist behind WikiLeaks treachery
What the media leaves out: Army staffer who leaked thousands of documents to WikiLeaks website is homosexual activist - angry at ban on gays in military.

By MassResistancee Update
Nov 30, 2010 at 9:48 PM

The US Army intelligence analyst who has been arrested for disclosing more than more than 90,000 intelligence reports and more than 150,000 diplomatic cables to the Wikileaks website is a homosexual activist enraged at the military's "anti-gay" policies.

The massive publication of top-secret documents has been called one of the greatest security breeches in US history and has reportedly endangered the lives of US personnel around the world.

Bradley Manning the gay traitor

Bradley Manning, who is now awaiting court-marshal at a military stockade in Quantico, VA, was arrested last May for giving a classified video to the Wikileaks website, and later it became clear that he had given them thousands of other military documents. He is an open homosexual, and his anger at the military's rejection of homosexuality appears to be the major reason for his actions.

Bradley (traitor) Manning in uniform

While in the Army, Manning has openly participated in gay rights marches, even publicly demonstrating against the military. In addition:

·       His Facebook page reportedly included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His big interest was to "Repeal the Ban" on homosexuals serving openly in the military. He proclaimed his support for the National Center for Transgender Equality. He also talked about going to gay bars.

·       According to newspaper reports, he was prone to fits of rage. At one point Manning was demoted for assaulting an officer. He also wore custom dog tags labeling himself as "Humanist" (as his religious affiliation). And like many male homosexuals, Manning reportedly had a terrible relationship with his father, who had also been in the military and was divorced from his mother.

·       Manning was very upset over a breakup earlier this year with his homosexual lover, a student at Brandeis University who according to the New York Times described himself on his blog as a "drag queen."
·       The Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military."

Manning said he spent 14-hour days copying the classified documents to send to the Wikileaks website.
As the Montreal Gazette reported,

Private Manning described how he downloaded the video and lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.

"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack," he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called himself "emotionally fractured" and a "wreck" and said he was "self-medicating like crazy."

Not surprisingly, Manning has since been applauded on homosexual blogs and websites across the country.

General media blackout on Manning's "gay" issue

Except for a few newspaper accounts, the mainstream media in the US has completely ignored any "gay" aspect to this story, and especially his anti-military homosexual activism. To our knowledge, none of the major TV or cable network news programs have discussed it. (Though Glenn Beck did mention "he was jilted by a boyfriend or something." That's the same Glenn Beck that doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.)

For example, on Monday The Atlantic posted an article, "WikiLeaks: One Analyst, So Many Documents". It discusses Manning in some detail, but simply describes him as "a disaffected young man".

It's pretty strange, to say the least. One wonders what else the media refuse to report.

Army ignored its own policy

Ironically, a major issue with the Manning case is that the Army was ignoring its own policy on homosexuals serving openly.

Jonah Knox (a pseudonym used by a US Army analyst) points this out in a great article on the Accuracy in Media website this week:

Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) ("Noncredible information") details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that "noncredible information" includes, "The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes."

In Manning's case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.

It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy.

In other words, had the Army been following the law (rather than the Clinton "Don't Ask" policy regulations), this would not have happened.

Incident reiterates reasons for excluding homosexuals from military

Most public health organizations (including the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health) have observed that homosexuals are far more susceptible to mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, and violence than the general population.

The inherent emotional weakness and moral instability of people involved in homosexual behaviors and its resulting possible damage to the military have been documented going back over 100 years.
For further reading: This week Dr. Scott Lively published a fascinating article which discusses this,  "The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection." We recommend it.
The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection Updated

By Dr. Scott Lively

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

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

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

However, the reasons go much deeper into western history. According to Samuel Igra in Germany’s National Vice, the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a clique of homosexuals had gained Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser engulfed the nation in scandal from 1907 to 1914 through a series of very public criminal trials.
According to Igra it grew so severe that Germany chose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote “Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the county.” Whether or not this was the true cause of The Great War is immaterial. It is enough that it caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.

And in World War II, also according to Igra, the most notorious of the traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals: Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England, Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor.”
Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality noted
“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country‘”…

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

A concise summary of the problem with inviting homosexuals into highly confidential circles is drawn from the memoirs of Police Commissioner Hans von Tresckow, who headed the equivalent of the Berlin “vice squad” from 1905 to 1919:
“[I]t is not the sense of duty towards one's fellow-men or the nation that forms the rule of conduct for homosexualists; but in every turn of life and in all their striving they think only of the good or harm they may do to their own clique of friends.”

It was true then and it is true today. Just ask Bradley Manning.
Angry gay activist behind WikiLeaks treachery

Support our work . . .
Donate to MassResistance!

Better yet - become a monthly donor (email us back to get set up)!

Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454
ALL donations are confidential. MassResistance does not sell or lend any of its lists.
The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection Updated
© 2002-2010 Abiding Truth Ministries, all rights reserved.


  1. Hmm .... Well my bold anonymous commenter, if you wish to stick your head in the sand and not see that it was a homosexual meltdown that was the motivating factor for the traitor Bradley Manning to hack classified and sensitive material and send it to a person that hates America, I guess you should go to homosexual activist or Left Wing websites to read the twisted information.

  2. Of course a member of a vilified group is likely to harbour resentment against those who vilify him. This is the summation of that verbose post, a truth obvious to even the most ignorant individual.

    However, this post goes wrong when it veers into identifying a singular attribute of a person as an dependable indicator of weakness or vulnerability, especially when the presented evidence is quotations from a sixty year-old study heavily biased by the social mores of the society in which it was conducted.

    It helps to analyse quotations for those kinds of biases before using them to make a educated point. For example:

    Senate committee reports from the 1950s concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" [...]

    This quote could easily be applied to a large range of human behaviour since the term 'moral perverts' is subjective, relying upon a moral framework defined in the reader's mind and the society in which they live. Take that quote and apply it to an intelligence agency operating within a society with strict moral codes, such as Sharia law, and the subjectivity of 'moral perverts' becomes clear. A woman leaving her house alone would qualify as 'moral pervesity'. However, the overall point is still perfectly valid: people vulnerable to blackmail are security risks.

    Blackmail only works when someone doesn't want knowledge about themselves shared. It's about maintaining secrecy. Is it then right to say that if we make it easier to open up these 'secrets', it nullifies the security risk for all concerned?

    This is a significant aspect of the anti-DADT effort: opening up these kinds of secrets so that anyone willing is able to serve their country without the fear that an irrelevant secret could someday cost them their dream or their country a dedicated soldier. In an open, accepting society, blackmail becomes an unusable weapon. Social vilification, arguably responsible for some or all of the "emotional instability and moral weakness" observed in a particular group, is also nullified.

    I'm certainly not of the type to say "Let's make everything legal!". This isn't a rational way to run a society when its members are unpredictable human beings of questionable ethics when unsupervised. While civic liberties are paramount, a careful, objective analysis of the long-term effects is necessary. I've spent a long time thinking about gender and orientation equality, and I've concluded that they're the least of our worries when it comes to society crumbling.

    It's clear that many religiously-based moral and ethical hurdles exist for you before the reasoning in the paragraphs above become clear, acceptable and the goal attainable. I honestly believe that many religious beliefs stand in the way of true rationalism and comprehension of the world around us -- as I'm sure you feel that Islam or non-mainstream "Christian" schism churches deny the rational themselves. It's also true that I look upon many conservatives these days with disdain, since a heavy religious undercurrent has overwhelmed the reasoning centres of both major American political parties and (for whatever reason) we've fallen into classifying people as 'us' or 'them' -- 'left' or 'right'. This is sad because in many ways I identify with conservative opinion when it's independent of religious overtones and nationalism, and it's becoming harder to find.

    Anyway, the question still remains as to whether Manning copied those documents out of spite for DADT or a sense of ethical responsibility to expose the illegitimacy of our Middle-Eastern wars. Perhaps a mix of both? But it can't be denied that annihilating DADT would have calmed his internal conflict. Personally, I think he would have released them regardless.

  3. SlantRight 2.0 Editor: Below is a comment that should have been posted but was not. The only reason I know of its existence is that the email made it through even though the comment post did not. It was not posted because the content was too long.

    I am making sure it is being posted not that I agree with Anonymous Comment, but because it is a reasoned and thought out rebuttal with an absence of ad hominem language.

    Below is the beginning of the comment with the whole comment posted in its entirety as a standalone post.

    JRH 12/17/10

    Posted by Anonymous
    Originally: December 16, 2010 8:48:38 PM

    Of course a member of a vilified group is likely to harbour resentment against those who vilify him. This is the summation of that verbose post, a truth obvious to even the most ignorant individual.

    However, this post goes wrong when it veers into identifying a singular attribute of a person as an dependable indicator of weakness or vulnerability, especially when the presented evidence is quotations from ... READ IN ENTIRETY AT SlantRight 2.0