View Single Post
Old March 3rd, 2014 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[picking up, p. 28]

HOMOSEXUALIZING HISTORY

Another important technique promoted by After the Ball, and employed repeatedly to great effect in recent years, is to claim that famous historical figures -- "from Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman" -- were homosexual or bisexual. Although the authors know these claims are unproven at best and often baseless (they refer to them as "suspected inverts"), that doesn't stop them from advocating the tactic.

A recent example of this was the highly publicized, though utterly unsubstantiated, speculation that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual. Even more outrageous was the suggestion by openly "gay" New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson -- a comment he quickly retracted after a firestorm of protest -- that Jesus Christ was a homosexual!

As Kirk and Madsen explain:

Quote:
Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us for two reasons: first, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel. Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement.
The flip side of this "celebrity endorsement" tactic consists of associating all detractors of the radical homosexual agenda with negative images of universally despised tyrants and lowlifes. After the Ball lists some of the negative images with which opponents should be associated -- including "Klansmen demandign that gays be slaughtered or castrated," "hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate," "menacing punks, thugs and convicts who speak coolly about the 'fags' they have bashed," and a "tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

Indeed, says Rondeau, "perhaps the most menacing focus of the campaign is the special treatment reserved for the religious dissenters. The strategy is to 'jam homohatred by linking it to Nazi horror.'"

Kirk and Madsen explain the leverage gained by this nasty technique:

Quote:
Most contemporary hate groups on the Religious Right will bitterly resent the implied connection between homohatred and Nazi fascism. but since they can't defend the latter, they'll end up having to distance themselves by insisting that they would never go to such extremes. Such declarations of civility toward gays, of course, set our worst detractors on the slippery slope toward recognition of fundamental gay rights.
Homosexual activists love to compare their opponents with Adolf Hitler and Nazis, apparently undaunted by the fact that, according to William L. Shirer's twelve-hundred-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, widely regarded as the definitive book on Nazi Germany (not true - Shirer has been proved to have lied or been mistaken on just this type of point - he is precisely the type that would aid queers in their jamming, and precisely the type Kupelian wouldn't rely on for support if it were anyone other than the Nazis the jew Shirer were defaming. Kupelian shares intellectual dishonesty with E. Michael Jones, who has used the discredited The Pink Swastika, based on lies from the jewish communists the Nazis fought, here. In short, you can't trust what a jew says about Nazis. Nor can you trust a right-wing christian conservative citing what a left-wing jew says about Nazis.), "many of the early Nazis" were homosexuals.

But this is not about truth. It's about manipulation. In a sense, modern psychology-based marketers understand people better than people understand themselves. They use emotional threads to tie their "product" (in this case, homosexuality) to preexisting positive attributes in the consumers' mind. And in a cultural-political campaign like this, they also successfully tie all who oppose their agenda to preexisting negatives, such as Nazis. The net effect of this conditioning can be so powerful over time that ultimately one's prior beliefs -- based on experience, religious training, conscience, and common sense -- are overwhelmed and replaced as a result of successive waves of emotion-driven reprogramming.

Still, one wonders how the press could allow itself to be used in such a blatantly propagandistic way and in pursuit of such a subversive agenda. (Not if one knows that the mass media are owned and controlled by jews, and that jews, per the Frankfurt School, believe that sexual immorality is the way to end 'anti-semitims.' Homosexuality is a form of sexual looseness, the promotion of which jews believe is "good for jews." Without the support of the jews controlling the mass media, the three-pronged queer plan to brainwash the conservative American public couldn't be put into operation. Kupelian is familiar with this, but he works for Suckpoop Joe Farah's WorldNetDaily, which is 100% pro-jew and pro-Israel. So Kupelian will pretend he-ums just can't understand nowise why the media go right along with the evil queers.) And make no mistake, the "gay rights" agenda, which includes indoctrinating kindergartners with pro-homosexual propaganda and legalizing same-sex marriage, is extraordinarily subversive to America's foundational values and institutions. For the answer to that question you have to realize what's happened to the news media in recent years.

As you no doubt already know, the establishment press is oriented far to the left of the American mainstream, as study after study for the past three decades has documented beyond rational dispute. But did you know that, in addition, a major homosexual presence has emerged in the "mainstream" media, especially since the dawn of the 1990s?

Indeed, part of the mobilization that occurred in the wake of the 1988 War Conference was the recognition that the news media represented the prime tool for changing the hearts and minds of Americans. And if getting your message before the media was the name of the game, how much better would it be to actually be the media? Thus 1990 saw the launch of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which has since grown into a formidable organization.

To celebrate its tenth anniversary, homosexual journalists from many major news organizations gathered in San Francisco for NLGJA's gala conference held September 7-10, 2000. The discussion on center stage was surreal. It focused on the question of whether or not, when reporting on stories related to homosexuality, mainstream journalists have a responsibility to include any viewpoints that contradict those of homosexuals. (You heard me right.)

MSNBC producer Ramon Escobar framed the issue this way: "This whole issue of 'balance' that we as journalists are supposed to achieve. . . . When we cover the black community, I've never seen a newsroom where you're covering one side and then you have to go run out and get the Klan's point of view: 'Well, I've got to go do my Klan interview.' How do you be fair?"

NLGJA member Jeffrey Kofman, at the time a CBS correspondent who later migrated to NBC, restated the question: "The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don't do that with Jews, blacks, etcetera?"

Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director of WNBC in New York, added: "I agree with him. I don't see why we would seek out . . . the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view."

"All of us," Kofman rejoined, "have seen and continue to see a lot of coverage that includes perspectives on gay issues that include people who just simply are intolerant and perhaps not qualified as well."

Are you getting the picture? Whereas fifty years ago a news story portraying homosexuality as normal and respectable was unheard of, now we're facing exactly the opposite spectacle. Up on that glitzy convention stage were representatives of top broadcast news networks debating whether or not professional journalists should give voice to the Christian or traditional viewpoint on homosexuality. Or, they suggested, wouldn't it be better just to censor such "hateful" and "bigoted" viewpoints as being the moral equivalent of a "pro-racism" or "pro-bigotry" viewpoint, and thus beyond the margins of civilized debate?

By the way, lest you think this was just an unrepresentative group of radical journalists blowing off steam in their off-hours, here's who sponsored this particular homosexual journalists conference: Hearst Newspapers; Knight-Ridder, Inc.; CBS News; Gannett Foundation; CNN; Bloomberg News; NBC News; the Dallas Morning News; Fox News Channel; the Los Angeles Times; the New York Daily News; the San Francisco Chronicle; Time, Inc.; the Wall Street Journal; the Washington Post; and the San Jose Mercury News.

No wonder "the mainstream press," overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the "gay rights" agenda, seems to be on the same page as homosexual activists engaged in desensitizing, jamming, and converting Americans to their world view. As a matter of fact, as we saw in the Matthew Shepard case, it's hard to tell them apart.

Thus a lot of the credit for the "gay-ing of America" can be laid at the door of the news media who, intentionally or not, have worked in tandem with the movement's public relations machinery for years now.

[cont'd]

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 3rd, 2014 at 05:39 PM.