it was disclosed that 96 perverts had been purged from the State Department. What was hidden on back pages and in subsequent minor releases, was the indictment and the far-reaching policies and administrative decisions emanating from that indictment. The indictment was horrifying in its complete lack of justification other than fantasy and hysteria. It stated bluntly that homosexuals. typified by either their personal inclinations and/or their associations, must be considered as basic security risks and thereby unemployable by the Government, or by any enterprise either public or private who might be dealing with the Government, because their personal lives and/or associations laid them wide open to blackmail by a foreign power.

It is notable that not one single political or pressure group among the liberals, let alone the left wing, lifted either voice or finger to protest the monstrous social and civil injustice and sweeping slander of this dictum. The complete hostility with which the Minority was surrounded by this indictment was a clear barometer of the outright antipathy unitedly maintained by every color of political opinion. It is significant to not that no alarm was raised then ... or since. . . and no purge directed, at married heterosexuals with a weakness for bulging busts, blonde secretaries, or National Hop-Week Queens. It is equally interesting to note that homosexual spies are not even plausible enough for the comic-book intellect, altho new Mata Haris hatch from capsules in each new issue.

Of the original 96 purged, not all were themselves homosexual. The Indictment specified not only homosexuals but also persons who might number homosexuals among their acquaintances. One might comment that if the Armed Services estimation of 13% is at all accurate, how many persons from Eisenhower down know more than 8 people, DON'T number at least one homosexual amongst their acquaintances? During this purge, new procedures were advanced, tested, modified . . . and incorporated into the McCarran Act a year later and thus made legal culture of the land. Such procedures were ... that the accused must prove himself innocent of charges anonymously preferred, and of charges whose details and particulars need not be specified. Put yourself in a purgee's position. Someone, whose name is being "protected" from you has described an activity of yours, the details of which you may not inquire. All you have to do is to prove you couldn't have done the "unspecified" thing because you aren't that kind of a person. Thus you are not disproving something done but something that you are or are not. You must disprove a status, not an act. It cannot be over-emphasized that the accusatory methods employed currently against persons being guinea pigs anonymously charged as being homosexual or at least pro-homosexual. All the accused had to do was to prove, to people who were not inclined to believe him, that he

page 7