It’s June, and what was once Bride Month is now Pride Month. So that means it’s time to celebrate, everyone! Mothers and fathers only get one day each every year, but 175ers get 30 days — and surely that must be faaaabulous!
Speaking of numbers, average Americans believe that a quarter of their fellow citizens are gay or lesbian. (I’m not making this up.) Actual polling statistics of sexual preference, at least until very recent times, indicate that somewhere between 2-4% of Americans are something other than straight. The perception in Gallup’s 2011 survey that 25% of our fellow citizens are light in their loafers was therefore plausibly a sixfold overestimate, or perhaps even tenfold.
Why would the masses of boobus americanus have a perception of reality that is so far removed from what they should’ve observed simply by interacting with their fellow citizens? There are a few factors here, and the greatest comes down to one word: television. Of course, TV addicts might also come away with the idea that half of Americans are black. From watching the commercials, they might also believe that everyone is a race-mixer, but all that’s another story.
In the days of yore
Back when I was an ankle biter and dinosaurs walked the Earth, things were a lot different. During the entirety of the 1970s, there were fewer than 100 TV shows made for the American market that had LGBT themes. By that I don’t mean entire series with recurring gay characters, but rather one-off episodes. That’s hard to imagine now, isn’t it?

You can buy James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro here.
Were the 1970s a dismal era of barbarism, when gays were despised and persecuted? Were their social lives limited to cruising bathrooms at public parks at best, and at worst involved staying at home and entertaining themselves with bodybuilding magazines? That’s not exactly the case. At the time, it wasn’t such a big deal as it once was. Moreover, gays had their institutions and social venues. It was an active subculture already.
From what I remember of the time, there was a general perception that they were a little weird, and “faggot” and “queer” were typical schoolyard insults. Even so, being gay wasn’t the end of the world. The zeitgeist of the entire decade was a little weird, for what it’s worth, so their “otherness,” as Leftist academic types put it lately, wasn’t entirely remarkable. It was basically just another thing. In the Bible Belt, surely perceptions were worse, as homosexuality is considered a perversion, though things had mellowed out at least somewhat by then. All told, surely it was better to keep private matters private. On the other hand, some musicians were openly gay, others had a bisexual aesthetic, and some tried to hide it — but everyone sort of knew, anyway. In their case, this actually made them perceivably seem a bit cooler. For performers, a transgressive flair can add to their popularity. Sure, Queen was a fruit salad — but oh, what a fruit salad it was!
I was once a TV addict in my misspent youth, but for some reason I lived through the 1970s without noticing the now-obscure cop show produced by NBC called Police Woman. There was an episode featuring a trio of deadly pearl divers that aired on November 8, 1974, and was called “Flowers of Evil.” Anticipating political resistance, the network had trimmed it up prior to airing, delaying production for a couple of weeks. Even so, the show’s release ignited a massive pile of flapdoodle. It’s unclear if the original cut still exists, but I smurfed a copy of the broadcast version. (It’s on YouTube here.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw3OKYxvkb0
The plot
It was a dark and stormy night. Kathleen, an elderly lady dressed to the nines, is taken on a ride to a fleabag motel, anticipating that she’ll meet someone. (That’s probably her long-lost sister.) The driver, Mame, is half a set of false eyelashes away from being Little Droogie Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Janet, the redhead in the back seat, looks like a deer in headlights. When they arrive, they don’t meet Kathleen’s sister. Instead, Gladys is there, though off-screen. Things don’t go so well for Kathleen, to say the least. Meanwhile, Janet is still standing by the car, sobbing in the rain.
This sequence is grim, grim, grim — about like when someone popped a cap in Bambi’s mother. Perhaps this is especially poignant to me for personal reasons. One of my elderly relatives was drugged and robbed by a group of Mexican healthcare professionals. They got away with it, but if I ever find out who did it, I’d be happy to punish the crime the Arab way. Allah said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
A few days later, the owner of the fleabag motel finds the very unlucky Kathleen. He notifies the police, but at first they have trouble identifying her. Then the long-lost sister, Mrs. Schmidt, finally shows up. She was asking around for her at a retirement home, but was told that Kathleen had left suddenly, not wanting to see her. For Sergeant “Pepper” Anderson, the show’s eponymous police woman, this sets off her Spidey sense.
Pepper goes undercover and applies for a job at the retirement home. Gladys is running the show — an ice princess type with sociopathic tendencies. Pepper is called out on her references, and admits she made them up, but then fabricates a story about having lost her previous job a bit ignominiously. Gladys finds the story of a checkered past to be acceptable. She probably considers it a qualification, since she’s running a criminal enterprise.
On the other hand, Mame finds Pepper to be objectionable, and seems rather jealous. As things are revealed later, it turns out that Janet and Gladys are an item. As for how Mame the diesel dyke fits into the relationship dynamic, it’s not entirely clear. Either they’re all in a triad, or Mame is in the Friend Zone. Perhaps the original screenplay clarified this question.
Pepper soon discovers how the racket is operating. The retirement home is draining the bank accounts of its residents via forged checks. When those run out, they start poisoning the patients. They had to rub Kathleen out quickly because her sister had come to get her out of there. Then everyone gets arrested — this is a cop show, after all.
Gladys, rather sensibly, clams up in the interrogation room. So does Mame, though her behavior is a bit reminiscent of a Charles Manson groupie. Janet stonewalls at first, but cracks when Pepper describes the horror of Kathleen’s murder. Although she’s the least culpable — she clearly wanted nothing to do with this, and was put under extreme pressure — she claims responsibility for all of it. Pepper then talks her out of taking the fall for her girlfriend.
She’s quite compassionate toward Janet throughout. (She certainly displays a lot more mercy than I’d ever expect to receive if, Allah forbid, I was to end up at the police station in the little cinderblock room with the bare metal desk and the bright lightbulb in my face.) She doesn’t condemn Janet for her orientation. Pepper describes a college roommate who fell in love with her, but ended up in the Friend Zone.
The Homintern strikes back
For the temerity of airing the episode, despite the fact that it had been toned down, a group called Lesbian Feminist Liberation strapped on their combat boots and staged a protest outside the network’s offices. There were about two dozen demonstrators — one with a transistorized megaphone, and the rest carrying signs. (The ones reading NBC — NOTHING BUT CRAP were a hoot!) Part of the “zap,” as gay advocacy stunts were called back then, included attempting a half-baked sit-in at the corporate headquarters.

You can buy Beau Albrecht’s Space Vixen Trek here.
Stung by all this, the network never allowed reruns of the “Flowers of Evil” episode. The only other Police Woman episode involving homosexuality was broadcast two years later, when another one of Pepper’s lesbian roommates was brought in, playing a sympathetic role.
Recall that this was a time before the mainstream media reflexively kowtowed to the Homintern, such as nearly all big businesses do these days. But after they had been swatted on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper twice in rapid succession, this marked a turning point. (The first was a big kerfuffle with ABC over a Marcus Welby, M.D. episode entitled “The Outrage” that was about a pedophile. There were complaints to the sponsors, causing some of them to pull their advertising.) After that, some TV producers started bringing on gay activists as sensitivity consultants, effectively allowing them to exercise prior restraint on the scripts before they were aired.
Again, at this point the mainstream media had no particular interest in the gay agenda. (Given that the American television industry produced an average of nine episodes per year with LGBT themes throughout the entire 1970s, the subject was barely a blip on their radar.) They simply shied away from bad publicity. Note that the media itself is a massive propaganda organ with a colossal budget. Moreover, it’s rather obviously the gatekeeper to publicity itself, and back in those days had a near-total information monopoly. It’s therefore absurd that the Marcus Welby, M.D. flapdoodle and the Lesbian Feminist Liberation “zap” — which were small potatoes, as far as demonstrations go — intimidated an entire industry into compliance. It’s rather like a giant being terrified by a fairy, but that’s what happened.
Was the “Flowers of Evil” episode truly derogatory to lesbians? Its Executive Producer explained that it was inspired by a true story, and the lesbian angle was an incidental biographical detail. Moreover, Gladys is the only one who is portrayed as stone-cold evil. Mame is essentially a follower; with correct guidance, she could’ve been a righteous dyke instead, hitching her diesel rig to a better trailer, as it were. Janet never wanted to have anything to do with the murder, and acted only with extreme reluctance. Although that’s not completely exculpatory, she’s really a decent person who got caught up in a Stockholm Syndrome relationship, which is apparent from how Gladys treats her. All this hardly suggests that all pearl divers are evil. Moreover, the cuts to the broadcast version even went as far as to excise the word “lesbian.”
In the real word, lesbians aren’t known to be particularly violent, apart from domestic violence. Still, in any population, even those not known for criminal tendencies, there are going to be a few malignant outliers here and there. (If someone who identifies as a cat pulls off a bank heist, statistically it was gonna happen one of these days.) Should the media refrain from ever portraying any members of a protected group in an unflattering way for fear of offending them? Regarding homosexuals, the TV executives decided that the answer was yes.
And the show goes on
Again, these events were a turning point. After 1974, it was getting to be off-limits to portray homosexuals as criminals on TV, even though obviously some do exist. After that, 175ers were more likely to be portrayed as sensitive characters who were victims of persecution. But that wasn’t the end of the story; not by far. During the 1980s there were gay TV characters who were played for laughs — but that, too, became politically incorrect soon enough. There’s a reason why.
The Homintern created a media strategy guide with the evocative title of “The Overhauling of Straight America.” The concepts were expanded into book form in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. (Anybody heard of those two playbooks? I didn’t think so, but if I’m wrong, throw some rocks at me in the comments section.) Here’s an excerpt from the book, summarizing strategies it had already discussed as well as some other agendas they had in mind:
Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade or counteract the rewarding pride in prejudice (peace, Jane Austen!) by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot, a horse’s ass, and a beater and murderer. Both Desensitization and Jamming, though extremely useful, are mere preludes to our highest — though necessarily very long-range — goal, which is Conversion.
It isn’t enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us — we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.
Please don’t confuse conversion with political Subversion. The word ‘subversion’ has a nasty ring, of which the American people are inordinately afraid — and on their guard against. Yet, ironically by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda, fed to the nation via the media. We mean subverting the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends-using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard-whether they like it or not.
What a confession! One might say that all this was a resounding success. At the very least, this explains why American TV addicts believe that a quarter of their fellow citizens know the difference between teal and aqua.
Putting it all together
For the record, I don’t have anything against lesbians in general. They think women are beautiful, they enjoy their sweet kisses and soft caresses, and I do, too. What’s the matter with carpet munching, anyway? I’ve dated a few lesbians, and I still love them dearly. (As for those who don’t make exceptions, thanks for nothing.) My intention is not to criticize, but rather to note an interesting fact: Very obviously, the Homintern was far less powerful in the mid-1970s than it is today. Moreover, it represented the interests of a subset of 2-4% of the population that was generally regarded as eccentric at best and perverted at worst. They didn’t let these limitations stop them; they got out there and raised holy hell. They weren’t the biggest special interest group, but they certainly were the noisiest! Then they kept going. Proverbially, they’re the people who just can’t take “yes” for an answer. I have to hand it to the 175ers: Their tenacity was, and is, outstanding.
In a culture war, actually showing up on the battlefield does wonders! So does taking your own side in the fight. How about that? In this case, they took exception to some TV programs that allegedly portrayed homosexuals negatively, and then kicked the mighty mainstream media in the shins until they made their point. Surely there’s a lesson in this.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
The%20TV%20Show%20the%20Homintern%20Didnand%238217%3Bt%20Want%20You%20to%20Watch
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
18 comments
Sounds like an interesting piece of television history, but it can’t be half as funny as the time Cannon chased down some teenaged black kid. Talk about suspending your disbelief.
I didn’t see that one. What happened with it?
I can’t find it on you tube but old William Conrad chased down a young black criminal. He also once ran down a school bus jumped on the back and saved the kids
Was it this episode? Not sure of the episode title or the season (1971-76) but I would expect that a Black Kid angle had such an ending.
I like Cannon’s car. Back when gas was cheap(er).
🙂
“Most notably, the car was featured in the detective television series Cannon where, in season 1, detective Frank Cannon drove a 1971 Mark III, before switching to Mark IVs for later seasons.”
Lincoln Continental Mark III
Let’s not forget the time TV decided that human chalupa Joe Don Baker — post Walking Talk, pre James Bond — was their next action hero.
https://youtu.be/InHgWFrQRbI
When I was a sitcom watching kid, age 8-12, I noticed episodes of Benson, Night Court, and some other show that starred Ted Knight from Caddyshack, all had an episode within a year or two with the same exact plot:
1st segment: [Benson /Ted / Harry] “Hey everyone! I just got a letter from my best friend from my Army days! I’m so excited! He’s coming to visit! This guy was the most macho BA, brave heroic soldier ever!”
2nd segment: Old friend shows up, self confidently gay with boyfriend on arm, Benson/Ted/Harry is absolutely disgusted, reject friend. Jokes ensue.
3rd segment: wise characters in show rebuke Benson/Ted/ Harry, who loses every debate
Conclusion: Benson/Ted/Harry comes to his senses, realize that being gay is perfectly healthy, wonderful, even macho, denounces his previous views and self, and begs for forgiveness. Gay friend magnanimously grants forgiveness and dashes out. Roll credits
The pioneer instance was, as per usual, Norman Lear’s All in the Family, with an episode in which Meathead asserts that an old friend of Archie’s is gay, Archie mocks the idea that this macho man could be a fairy, mentions it to the guy later while arm-wrestling at the bar, guy calmly says “He’s right” and the stunned Archie loses his grip (literally). Admittedly a fun episode.
https://youtu.be/2TkPs1SkiEw
That sounds like the basic Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner plotline. Well, I’m not completely certain the analogy is exact, as I haven’t seen it, but I’d wager so. Culture distorters can be rather predictable at times.
Pro-White activists are not in the same position as 1970s homosexuals with regard to cultural power.
The jews won WWII, not White Americans.
From that time forward, any deviant demographic whose political and cultural aspirations were supported by international jewry could expect to get assistance from the mainstream culture.
‘The Overhauling of Straight America’ is clearly the work of the advertising industry, not some shoe-string guesswork by a truly dissident organization.
The only thing we can learn from the homosexual liberation movement is the utility of appeals to the American public for ‘fairness’ but since no-one in the Racial Right believes in the value of ‘fairness’, it doesn’t occur to them to use this rhetorical lever.
Granted, my analogy isn’t exact. Still, here’s an example of the tail wagging the dog since 1974. (We, on the other hand, are the Sleeping Giant thus far.) The mighty mass media could’ve offended any social group it felt like and gotten away with it. However, they chickened out after two dozen lesbians showed up with signs and a megaphone. They pushed back. Although gay advocacy was a cultural Marxist project from the very beginning, at the time it was too fringe to get mainstream liberal support. If memory serves, this remained the case about until the time Jesse Jackson announced the Rainbow Coalition concept, a decade later.
Indeed, I recall that the authors of After The Ball did have considerable public relations street cred. They included examples of advertising spots, templates that even a newbie fresh out of film school could’ve worked with.
Finally, it’s true that we don’t appeal to fairness too much. However, appealing to survival is even better. The more that The System turns up the heat, the more credibility we get on that.
‘Survival’ is not meaningful to most Whites who, despite everything, still lead relatively comfortable lives.
The reality of White people ‘drowning in comfort’ (Owen Benjamin) has been known for a long time in the Racial Right movement. You can pick any radio show by Covington or Pierce and hear them bitch about the ‘complacency’ of Whites. Frustration with this situation (combined with latent Christian eschatological impulses) led to an orientation on the Right toward a ‘collapse then glory’ mentality that prevails in much of the movement.
And yet, after 70+ years, we’re no closer to solving the problem of ‘White complacency’ appealing to urgency and uncertainty (like ‘survival’).
As we have seen over and over again, there are many Whites who are not as motivated by the survival of their own race as they are ‘fairness’.
So, really, Whites are not ‘complacent’ so much as the movement hasn’t found a way to motivate them toward organizing in a pro-White direction.
So, it seems to me at least part of our movement ought to be exploring how we can hitch the survival of the White race – however indirectly – to ‘fairness’ and any other ‘liberal’ concept that motivates currently-racially-complacent Whites.
The relationship between ‘complacent’ but concerned Whites and the pro-White movement is what we should be thinking really hard about.
I think the movement has failed – at least in part – to reach a lot of Whites because of the emotional approach – or lack thereof – taken toward concerned Whites who have yet embrace the ‘outlaw life’ of taking their race’s side in the struggle for resources.
The general approach in the movement is to brow-beat people as if they were a coach of a losing team. This approach has failed spectacularly, but, still, the browbeating will continue until appreciation increases.
Maybe, however, most Whites don’t need a coach. They’re not on the team in the first place.
Maybe what most Whites need is a suitor.
I’ll concur, that approach is worth a shot. Deep down, I’m a pragmatist. I’m in favor of whatever gets results.
I believe in the value of fairness.
In bootcamp in the late sixties, I remember one of the classes on the Uniform Code of Military Justice covering sex crimes. The list of places that you weren’t allowed to stick your dick was read off by a gravelly voiced first class petty officer, a boatswain’s mate I think. The list included men, women married to someone other than yourself, or even your own wife in the wrong orifice, which was specified, children, in any orifice, each one specified, and animals, orifices also specified. There might have been a few more, the list seemed really long. I remember it mainly because after each instance, the boatswain’s mate added the phrase, “penetration, however sleight, is sufficient to complete the offense”, which probably had to be included because guys had claimed innocence because they didn’t stick it all the way in. Whatever the reason, after five or six repetitions of that phrase, no one could keep from laughing, even the instructor. Of course he added that the consequences were certainly not funny.
I can’t say that I ever knew for sure that any of my shipmates was homosexual. There were a couple who had some effeminate mannerisms or appearance, but I don’t think they really were. I’m afraid that nowadays, people like them, while still children, would be encouraged or persuaded to consider themselves homosexual or one of the other letters of the alphabet, and made to think of themselves as heroic for doing so.
Amazing, and hilarious story. Seems ‘Stripes’ was actually truth in advertising
Ze (the boatswain) could well now be a trannie, railing about the dangers of monkey pox whilst tucking strawberry-flavoured prophylactics down the trousers of the sailors on parade. On those slightly different men being sucked into the trannie vortex, I feel exactly the same way.
Pedantic quibble here – it’s not “monkeypox” any more; they renamed it “mpox” now. That’s because, thanks to our Current Year racial powderkeg, talking about monkeys makes certain people uncomfortable. (I’m not making this up!) Of course, they forgot to tell us what the “m” in “mpox” means…
Of course, it reminds me of when the WHO renamed the ‘WuFlu’ or ‘China virus’ just in time for all the pre-prepared COVID-19 testing kits.
Hi Beau,
I just saw your article on David Cole and the Holocaust. The comments on that article are closed.
I’d like to chat with you “off the record” about Auschwitz-Birkenau. My gmail address is my last name and first name, all one word.
Best wishes,
Mark Bahner
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment