|July 19th, 2013||#1|
Queer Strategies (in conjunction with jews) for Destroying Western Society
The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
From the August 2013 Trumpet Print Edition »
It’s been spectacularly successful at reshaping society.
By Dennis Leap
The quickest civil rights shift in U.S. history took place on June 26. With two landmark rulings, the Supreme Court gave its support to “gay marriage” as a legal institution. Striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (doma), signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the court ruled that legally “married” same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits. “doma is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion. The Obama administration has pledged to act swiftly to extend federal benefits to legally “married” same-sex couples.
The court declined to decide a case related to California’s Proposition 8, effectively allowing same-sex “marriages” there.
The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex unions throughout the nation and declined to say that there is a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.” Yet they cleared the way for same-sex unions to become legal in California, the nation’s most populous state. It is expected that California will legalize “gay marriage,” making it the 13th state to allow such unions along with the District of Columbia.
This issue is dominating public and private discussion worldwide. The media love it: Images of same-sex couples lustfully embracing are popping up everywhere on television, the Internet and magazine covers. Gallons of ink and tons of paper are being used to publish newspaper stories on marriage for homosexual couples. Try as you may, you can’t get away from the issue.
Leading the debate are homosexuals and their supporters, who claim that redefining marriage will be good for America, the marriage institution and children—the little ones adopted, brought into a homosexual relationship from a previous heterosexual marriage, or born via a surrogate or in vitro fertilization. They believe marriage is a tradition that has been evolving for millennia, and that it’s time for it to evolve to include them.
Conservatives also believe marriage is a tradition—but one that should not be tampered with. They say loosening the definition of marriage beyond one woman and one man will destroy marriage altogether and open the door to legalize other perverted unions. Conservatives want the American people to decide the matter through the political process, which includes voting.
Careful analysis of the current debate shows that neither side understands the vital purpose for marriage! If everyone fully understood and embraced the purpose for marriage, this debate would have never even begun.
How did we get here—entertaining the notion that marriage should include same-sex couples? This transformational change did not happen spontaneously.
How did you form your view on homosexuality? Most people don’t reason it out, considering evidence on all sides and sifting truth from error. They simply absorb influences and come to accept certain ideas as normal. They follow what seems right at the time.
The fact is, the great majority are forming views and making decisions and even policies having been influenced, even bullied, by political correctness, peer pressure or societal coercion. There has been a clandestine yet concerted effort to radically change people’s minds about homosexuality. And whether they realize it or not, many people have come to accept and embrace this idea because they’ve been unwittingly manipulated to do so.
Numbing Western Minds
In 1960, every American state had anti-sodomy laws, many of which prohibited intimate acts between persons of the same sex. Homosexuals hid their actions to avoid prosecution. However, in 1969 homosexuals in New York rioted after police raided the Stonewall Inn, a “gay bar.” This led to the formation of the “gay liberation” movement, which has worked for decades to pass anti-homosexual-discrimination laws.
Pro-”gay marriage” lawsuits began to be filed over four decades ago. Although not nationally publicized, between 1970 and 1973, courts in Kentucky, Minnesota and Washington denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples that filed lawsuits to obtain them. Yet the intellectual stance on homosexuality began to change. It was in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association stopped listing homosexuality as a mental disorder.
At the same time, a turbulent sexual revolution was landing in the West, finding fertile ground and rooting itself in its top university campuses. Sexual experimentation, including homosexuality, filled the dormitories. It was on these university campuses that the first moves were made to turn public opinion in favor of homosexuality.
The numbing of the staunchly anti-homosexual Western mind began slowly at first. Homosexuals used tv sitcoms and movies to influence viewers’ thinking. In 1971, All in the Family became the first sitcom to depict a homosexual character. Daringly, it was the show’s fifth episode, “Judging Books by Their Covers,” that sought to smash people’s stereotypes. The episode showed that Meathead’s effeminate-looking friend was not homosexual, but Archie’s athletic former-nfl-linebacker friend was.
“A reading of this episode reveals that even four decades ago, television writers tackled the issue of gay rights using tactics that remain operable today,” writes A. J. Aronstein for Splitsider. Before All in the Family, homosexuals and homosexuality took the brunt of all jokes, but not anymore. tv viewers were being taught: Overlook the homosexual part, and you’ll see a normal person just like you.
Out of the Closet—In Your Face
The public and lawmakers did not jump on the “gay rights” train immediately. In 1973, Maryland became the first of 31 states to officially ban same-sex “marriages.” But homosexuals remained active and aggressive.
The first national homosexual-rights march on Washington took place Oct. 14, 1979, with between 75,000 and 125,000 homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people and straight allies demanding pro-homosexual legislation. The legal fight was on.
In 1980, John Boswell, a prominent historian and Yale University professor, published Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality claiming that the early Roman Catholic Church may have sanctioned same-sex “marriages.” In 1983, Harvard Law student Evan Wolfson wrote his thesis—his manifesto—advancing the legal right to same-sex “marriage.” John Boswell died of complications from aids in 1994. Wolfson, a founder of the same-sex “marriage” movement, now directs a group called Freedom to Marry.
In 1981, medical researchers first reported on the health-wrecking symptoms now known as aids. Originally called grid—gay-related immunodeficiency disease—this fatal illness spread with particular force amid promiscuous homosexual men. Activist homosexuals convinced the medical establishment to change the name to “acquired immune deficiency syndrome.” Even so, the spread of aids caused the public stigma of homosexuality to grow stronger.
“The aids epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America,” wrote Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in November 1987. “The 10 years ahead may decide for the next 40 whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America’s caste of detested untouchables.”
These words appeared in an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America” in Guide Magazine in November 1987. In this article, the authors outlined a strategy for transforming public perception of homosexuality. “At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more,” they wrote. “We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.”
This article advocated just such a campaign, in astounding detail. The authors’ suggestions were voluminous: Talk publicly about homosexuality, particularly in the media (“almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it”). Encourage the appearance of favorable homosexual characters on television shows and in movies. Portray homosexuals as pillars of society (“In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western civilization”). Claim that famous historical figures were homosexual (“From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman”). Use spokespersons who are indistinguishable from straight people. Keep the discussion broad and abstract, downplaying actual homosexual behavior (“First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!”). De-emphasize the fact that people choose to be homosexual (“the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference”). Portray homosexuals as victims in need of protection. Promote the cause using civil rights terminology (“Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme”). Publicize support for gays by more moderate churches. Undermine conservative resistance by representing it as antiquated and out-of-touch. Vilify opponents, associating them with the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis (“make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types”). The article concluded with a multi-step plan for gaining ever greater access to television, radio and the mainstream press.
It is easy to forget just how radical this plan was at the time—simply because we now live in the pro-homosexual world they wanted to create.
Shifting Public Opinion
In 1989, the New Republic published the article “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” “[G]ay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones,” author Andrew Sullivan argued. “It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It’s an extension of them.” Sullivan’s article helped thrust the debate out of the academic world and into the mainstream landscape.
In 1993, Tony Kushner’s seven-hour play, Angels in America, which deals with homosexual themes including aids, won the Pulitzer Prize. That same year, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the state law barring same-sex “marriage” may violate its constitution, and the U.S. military instituted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In 1994, Tom Hanks won the Oscar for best actor for his portrayal of a homosexual with aids in Philadelphia. ikea placed its first ad featuring two men as a couple.
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court established that banning protective laws for homosexuals was unconstitutional with Romer v. Evans. But President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining for the federal government marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Yet Time magazine put Ellen DeGeneres on its cover in 1997 with a bold title in red ink stating, “Yep, I’m Gay.” Even to the surprise of many homosexuals, the strategy was working.
In 2000, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to legalize same-sex “marriage.” The same year, Vermont became the first U.S. state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, with a 6-3 ruling in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, struck down the state’s sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, legalizing same-sex sexual activity in every U.S. state and territory.
In 2004, Massachusetts legalized same-sex “marriage” by court decision, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom briefly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In 2008, a California court legalized “gay marriage” (although voters then banned it by Proposition 8). In 2011, the military ended “don’t ask, don’t tell,” allowing homosexuals to be open about their sexuality. Even Marvel Comics gave one of its superheroes a homosexual wedding in 2012.
Public opinion has followed the radical shift. The first national public opinion poll on approval of “gay marriage” in 1996 found a 27 percent approval rating. By 1999, it jumped to 35 percent, then 39 percent by 2005. The next year, it rose to 42 percent, dropping back to 40 percent in 2008 and then shooting to 44 percent by 2010. This year, a cnn poll found that support for same-sex “marriage” had grown to 53 percent—nearly double what it had been just 17 years before—thus becoming the majority position in America.
The Supreme Court first heard oral arguments on the cases related to Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act in March. On April 8, Time boldly printed on its cover: “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court hasn’t made up its mind—but America has.” Homosexuals wanted the Supreme Court, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, to decide the issue. They feared a national public vote. Now, homosexuals have gotten their wish! Justice Kennedy led the way in striking down doma. By using the media and the courts, homosexual activists and leftist media have successfully broken America’s will to resist homosexuality.
Time for Clarity
Is traditional marriage gone forever? Only if we allow it to be taken from us! Polls show that Americans over 65 still strongly resist same-sex “marriage,” yet Americans born after 1980 strongly favor it. It was the 20-somethings that highly praised the sordid film Brokeback Mountain. It was the 20-somethings that made Modern Family the top-rated tv show in 2010.
Why is adult America allowing 20-somethings to redefine marriage? Why are young people taking control of America’s cultural values?
Most of America is allowing itself to be bullied by an aggressively vocal minority. Pro-homosexuals want Americans to believe there are large numbers of homosexuals who want to receive legal benefits, marry and raise children. The reality is, those large numbers do not exist.
The 2011 census counted approximately 114.8 million households in the United States. In 2010, the Census Bureau reported that same-sex pairs headed about 600,000 U.S. households—0.52 percent. Of those, only 115,000 have children—meaning 0.1 percent of American households are homosexuals raising children.
A tiny homosexual minority is forcing its views on the majority. Left-leaning journalists help by demonizing any voice opposed to it.
“One of the most effective tactics of gay rights activists has been to shift the debate,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor on March 25. “Instead of asking society to expand its view of marriage to accommodate them, same-sex marriage proponents have attacked those supporting the traditional view of marriage as bigots enforcing marriage exclusivity out of animosity towards gays and lesbians.”
Few people are willing to stand up for traditional marriage and to brave public humiliation. Too many Americans have said instead, As long as it doesn’t affect me, let them do what they want.
But it does affect you.
What About You?
Whether or not you realize it, the homosexuality issue touches many of the biggest, most profound and important questions in life.
Homosexuality challenges several fundamentals of human existence. Why male and female? Why marriage? What is its purpose? What defines family?
The implications of this issue force you to contemplate spiritual realities including the nature and character of God—and of the devil. And it challenges our understanding of the supreme question: Why are we here? What is the purpose for humankind?
Do you know the answers to these questions? If you don’t, then your attitude about homosexuality—positive or negative—is not based on a full understanding of the truth!
You can’t afford to decide on this subject with hazy opinions and assumptions. Your attitude and choices on homosexuality have profound implications for you and your loved ones. ▪
|July 19th, 2013||#2|
Our Homophilia Fascination
From the July 2013 Trumpet Print Edition »
The collective mindset of the public is increasingly fascinated by homosexuality. Where is it leading?
I’m not one for writing overly much on social issues. I have spent a lifetime observing the transition of the Western mind from a general occupation on uplifting, profitable things, to a perverse preoccupation with the very opposite. I find nothing uplifting in writing about nor on overly reading about one wretched phenomenon that is flooding the public’s collective mindset in particular.
This fascination with all things homosexual has emanated from our general education changing over time from a cultural commitment to generally accepted, biblically based, unselfish moral standards to the very opposite: sheer, hedonistic, self-indulgence.
The postwar elevation of liberal socialism, with its destruction of traditional mores in favor of each individual establishing his own “set of values”—and its wretched outgrowth, the socially destructive feminist movement—have combined to warp the public’s sense of why God established the whole institution of the family, and of the reasons for our God-ordained gender roles as men and women, fathers and mothers (Genesis 2:24; 1:28).
This has progressively, over the past 60 years, succeeded in promoting the perversity of homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle” choice, open to all.
On May 6, cns reported that “In the eight days since nba player Jason Collins announced he was gay, the news media have covered the story in 2,381 places. But in the first eight days of the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his ‘House of Horrors’ abortion business, the media covered the story in 115 places, meaning that Collins’ ‘gay’ news received more than 1,970.4 percent more news coverage.”
This is also a powerful demonstration of the extent to which homophilia has penetrated the Fourth Estate in Western society—particularly in the U.S.
What is homophilia? It’s the opposite of homophobia, a pejorative used by homosexual lobbyists and the media to describe any person who hews to the Creator God’s assessment of homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13). It describes those who are fixated on homosexuality as a “lifestyle” that should be embraced, even promoted.
“Jason Collins, who plays center for the Washington Wizards, announced he was a homosexual in a self-written article for the Sports Illustrated website on April 29. Kermit Gosnell is charged with five counts of murder and 263 other criminal offenses related to his abortion business in Philadelphia; his trial started on March 18 .… [I]n the first eight days of coverage, there were 2,266 more news stories about Jason Collins coming out of the closet as gay than news stories about Gosnell who, specifically, is charged with killing four babies born alive during abortions by snipping their spinal cords with surgical scissors. The fifth murder charge against Gosnell concerns a woman who died from an anesthesia-overdose” (ibid).
Included in the 263 charges against Gosnell are additional accusations including “conspiracy, solicitation, infanticide, theft by deception, corruption of minors, and tampering with or fabricating evidence. The grand jury report on the Gosnell case states there were ‘hundreds’ of ‘snippings,’ and that Gosnell ‘committed hundreds of acts of infanticide.’”
The Apostle Paul declared that “it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret” (Ephesians 5:12). Verses 3-5 of that chapter and Ephesians 4:19 reveal that the context here is perverted human lust. But we have gone in the opposite direction, flooding our mass media and entertainment with a huge excess of “speaking of those things done of them in secret”!
The result is that we are raising generations whose minds are poisoned with perversion. Our lawmakers now entrench in state law the very opposite of the behavior legitimized by the Creator who made us and laid down the divine law that directs human affairs the way they were intended to be. We will pay a mighty penalty for this.
God’s law is immutable. It defines what real love for God and humankind is. It is outgoing, outflowing, uplifting and replete with instruction in how to fulfill the incredible human potential we were designed to achieve.
We must open our minds, not to the conventional wisdom of the media, but to God’s uplifting, inspirational, lawful way of life. A good place to commence such a study would be by reading our inspirational books Mystery of the Ages and The Incredible Human Potential. They will give you a true guide to studying the Scriptures with a genuinely open mind, to drinking in the plain truth about why you exist and the way you were designed to live! ▪
|July 19th, 2013||#3|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Gay `marriage' is evidence of collapse!
Thanks, Alex! Both articles are excellent. As we know, the jewish-controlled media has led the charge of creating a moral inversion whereby what was once understood by all people to be repellent, disgusting and sick is now hailed as the most beautiful, sublime and fashionable act. There are few examples more illustrative of the collapse of Western Civilization than watching Western societies embrace homosexual perversion and degeneracy. If there is a benefit for White Nationalism to be found in this sea of filth and debauchery created in the West by successive governments, it is to remind us that all governments in the West which promote the destructive policies of both massive third-world immigration and homosexual `marriage' are illigitimate states and must be replaced eventually by racially and morally progressive White Nationalist states.
|July 19th, 2013||#4|
Celebrating My Diversity
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Good background article. Major flaw as author declines to name 'jew,' instead implies handful of largely faceless and nameless, powerless fudge-packers miraculously changed general opinions and attitudes, all by their lonesome, in about a generation. Then he claims the prime movers are 'young people' generally and 'leftists' in media.
Same flaw at 'The Conservative Treehouse,' which has done an otherwise fantastic job on the Zimmerman political persecution. Instead of naming 'jew,' they concocted (or otherwise choose to assign complicity to) something called 'BGI'. I had to web search this acronym to decipher what the hell they were talking about. It stands for 'Black Grievance Industry'. The implication is that jew-empowered nigger goof Al Sharpton, along with others of his ilk, somehow wield tremendous, self-generated power. This theory is ludicrous.
It's frustrating to read conservative authors who refuse to name the cause and mechanism, or who substitute a laughably implausible alternative explanation. If one's IQ is high enough, he or she must feel unsatisfied with this type of piece. These analyses are to politics what rice cakes are to food. One can survive on them, but not well and not long.
|August 22nd, 2013||#6|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Submarine Proposes to His Boyfriend (TFW)
How romantic! The military is rapidly being filled with nothing but queers. The Negress taking a photo is a nice touch too.
|March 3rd, 2014||#7|
[an extended selection from David Kupelian's The Marketing of Evil (2005) (pp.23-38... on how queers went about changing their image and suppressing all dissent from their picture of their 'community']
In February 1988 some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement's future. Shortly thereafter, activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen put into book form the comprehensive public relations plan they had been advocating with their gay-rights peers for several years.
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys -- very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Together they wrote After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s.
"As cynical as it may seem," they explained at the outset, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care. At the same time," they warned, "it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. . . . How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?"
The bottom line of Kirk and Madsen's master plan? "The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising."
Arguing that, skillfully handled, the AIDS epidemic could conquer American resistance to homosexuality and form the basis of a comprehensive, long-term marketing campaign to sell "gay rights" to straight America, After the Ball became the public-relations "Bible" of the movement.
Kirk and Madsen's "war goal," explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to "force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society." In his comprehensive study, "Selling Homosexuality to America," Rondeau writes:
Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement "gay rights." This accomplishes two major objectives: (1) use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controversial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity -- gay, which, after all, once meant "happy"; and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over "rights" implies homosexuals are being denied basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy.
So merely by using the term gay rights, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activist seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend and abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.
Okay, you might be wondering, even granting the movement's cutting-edge marketing savvy, how do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don't. Just don't talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.
"When you're very different, and people hate you for it," they explain, "this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then -- when your one little difference is finally accepted -- can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first." As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow."
In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other "peculiar" members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.
Rondeau explains Kirk and Madsen's techniques of "desensitization," "jamming," and "conversion" this way:
THE ROAD TO CONVERSION
"Jamming," explains Rondeau, "is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even open support for dissenting opinion." Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program's advertisers. As a result, the show was stillborn.
But perhaps the highest-profile example of jamming occurred after the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman Matthew Shepard. Lured from a bar, robbed and savagely beaten by two men, Shepard died five days later of head injuries. In the frenzied, saturation media coverage that followed, the press and homosexual activists singled out conservative Christians as having created a "climate of anti-gay hate" in which such a brutal act could happen.
NBC's Today show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at that time that offered to help homosexuals change their orientation. Reporter David Gregory narrated: "The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growign belief that homosexuality may be genetic. . . . Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Mathew Shepard? Gay rights activists say the ads convey a message that gay people are defective."
And in a now-infamous interview, Today's Katie Couric asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer: "Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people to say, 'If I meet someone who's homosexual, I'm going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.' Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?"
Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen's playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers. In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals -- in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.
As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn't a factor in Shepard's murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.
So much for desensitization and jamming. But what about "conversion"? Here, Kirk and Madsen announce defiantly:
"It makes no difference that the ads are lies," write Kirk and Madsen, "not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 3rd, 2014 at 03:58 PM.
|March 3rd, 2014||#8|
[picking up, p. 28]
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:
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:
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.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 3rd, 2014 at 04:39 PM.
|March 3rd, 2014||#9|
[picking up pg. 31]
WE FORGOT ONE THING
Today the homosexual activist movement is a juggernaut, racking up success after success. Even the occasional losses, such as voter rejection of same-sex marriage in the 2004 election, are simply the expected "one step back" in the time-honored "two steps forward, one step back" mode of most long-term political wars. (After all, by audaciously conducting thousands of illegal same-sex marriage ceremonies, homosexuals all but guaranteed legal and social acceptance of their fall-back position -- homosexual civil unions with the full legal force of marriage, something most Americans regarded as radical and unacceptable just a few years ago.)
As just one of a multitude of success indicators, consider that the popular teen magazine Seventeen conducted a reader poll in 1991, shortly after activist homosexuals abandoned the streets in favor of the television studio. At the time, only 17 percent of the magazine's adolescent readers accepted homosexuality as appropriate. In 1999, after eight years of intense "gay rights" marketing, a whopping 54 percent, more than three times as many teens, accepted homosexuality as appropriate.
This stunning turnaround is reflected in virtually every area of society. Whether in culture, politics, law, business, the news media, entertainment, education, or even the church, homosexual strides have been nothing short of astonishing. Once condemned as "immoral deviants," homosexuals and lesbians today are honored, idealized, defended as victims, and celebrated as role models. Thanks to "hate crimes" legislation, they are now afforded extra legal protection as a special class of people -- protections not granted to all members of society. (If you were assaulted, the perpetrator would get one sentence, but if you were assaulted because of your homosexuality, the perpetrator would receive a more severe sentence under hate-crimes sentencing guidelines.)
Meanwhile, in what was once a vibrant Judeo-Christian (notice how Kupelian uses that propaganda term like there's nothing wrong with it, just like his boss, turned-out punk Shitlips Farah) culture, Christians and other proponents of traditional biblical principles are routinely cast as bigots and "homophobes," thanks to constant jamming. Direct quotes from the Bible regarding homosexuality are routinely condemned as "hate speech," and -- as we have seen -- pro-homosexual journalists piously agonize over whether or not they should dignify the traditional, biblical viewpoint by even acknowledging it.
Multitudes of activists -- with almost limitless time and energy to devote to advancing their agenda, largely unencumbered by any need to change diapers, pay for dental braces, or attend their children's soccer games, as do most heterosexual married people -- have succeeded in their goal of transforming society. As public relations campaigns go, it's been an unqualified success.
However, in the "gay rights" movement's relentless struggle to legitimize homosexuality, and in the greater society's veneration of them as heroes of the great civil rights crusade of the new millenium, we've forgotten one thing. In the endlessly clever media campaign that's bamboozled everyone, "restructured their consciousness," turned their hate into lvoe and their rejection into acceptance, something crucial has been lost.
We've forgotten about reality. We've been living in a Madison Avenue fantasy world of marketing images and carefully crafted rhetoric in the foreground, with court battles, fascistlike intimidation, and relentless waves of persuasion in the background.
But what about the truth we've left behind? What about the reality of homosexuality, of what causes it, and of what it means physically and spiritually for those so oriented? Do we even care anymore?
Let's rewind and go back to former Congressman Robert Bauman, who in poignantly describing his internal struggles against his homosexual compulsions confided that he had been sexually seduced when he was five years old by an older boy.
Did that experience have anything to do with Bauman's future homosexuality?
There was a time when psychiatry, psychology, religion, and common sense all said "yes." In fact, sexually abused young males are "up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused," concludes the peer-reviewed 1998 study, "Sexual Abuse of Boys," by William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D.
On that topic, a reader recently wrote to me: "We are a family of eight siblings and the oldest is gay, and has lived with the same partner for 41 years. At various times, my siblings and I have tried to discover why he is gay and none of the rest of us are. We finally found out through an older cousin that my brother was repeatedly sexually molested when he was six years old by a 19-year-old man.
Even Kirk and Madsen, who advise activists to claim they were born homosexual, know better. "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay," they write, "even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence."
If "environmental factors" are involved -- and everyone knows they are, whether or not they publicly admit it -- why then advise homosexuals to claim they were "born gay"?
"To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen," Kirk and Madsen explain, "is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it."
Unfortunately, with all the brainy marketing behind the campaign to mainstream homosexuality, what's been swept under the rug is the recognition -- once commonplace in America -- that flawed early relationships or sexual victimization can put a child on the road to homosexuality.
Children are exquisitely impressionable, so much so that sexual seduction or assault is a major trauma that can, and often does, reprogram the victim's identity -- his view of who or what he is. While the Holmes and Slap study confirms this, the point is self-evident: our prisons are full of child molesters who were molested as children and batterers who were battered as children.
What about the twelve-year-old boy who molested Bauman? What caused him to sexually seduce a five-year-old boy? No doubt he felt a strong compulsion to do to a new kid what had been done to him. But why?
An innocent young child has a "bright light" quality that feels mysteriously threatening to those in the grip of corruption. In fact, many see this dynamic at the core of a great deal of child abuse.
To the person who's already been "converted" and is acting out the homosexual "lifestyle," it's deeply satisfying -- far beyond mere sexual pleasure -- to "initiate" an innocent person. Doing so serves to anesthetize his own conscience and assuage his inner conflict by destroying the innocence of another person, since that innocence tends to make him aware of his own corruption.
There was a time when most Americans knew that homosexuals were not "born that way" but rather had their normal gender-identity development disturbed and redirected through early childhood experiences. There was a time when we recognized on some level that unhealthy relationships with mothers and fathers could cause girls and boys to grow up with gender confusions -- just like emotionally devastating traumatic experiences of molestation -- if not dealt with properly.
But that was a time before much of America itself was seduced into believing there was no God, or if there was a God, He is inconsequential to the affairs of the world (well then, if he's not, show us the consequences. You can't? Oh.) It was a time when Judeo-Christian morality inspired the culture and laws of the land. It was such a great culture it couldn't even withstand a decade of homoprop before caving.
Today we've basically abandoned "old-fashioned" notions of right and wrong in favor of "consensuality," which means two people can do whatever they want, no matter how abominable, as long as they "don't hurt anybody else." The problem with that -- aside from the fact that it denies the existence of God and His laws -- is that in such a deluded state you have no basis for determining if you're hurting another person or not. A pedophile justifies sex with children precisely because he doesn't believe he's hurting the child; rather he believes he's loving him!
You might wonder: Where and when will this "gay rights" public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality. In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia.
"Why?" you might ask. "I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms." No, they've had that for years.
Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced -- and all because of a little factor we've forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality. Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive -- just as Western civilization has long understood it.
Homosexual activists fancy their cause as identical to that of blacks and the '60s civil rights movement. But being black is not unnatural and self-destructive. No, it's other-destructive. Being of African origin obviously doesn't involve fleeing one's own conscience and the author of that conscience -- God.
But it is precisely because of this difference that the "gay civil rights" movement is not about changing the laws so homosexuals can have equal opportunity for advancement or access as it was for blacks during the '60s. Homosexuals already live in freedom and can reside, work, or play virtually anywhere they want. In fact, as a group, homosexuals enjoy a higher income level than the general American population.
It's not about rights. It's about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their "lifestyle" without having to be disturbed by reality.
Remember, all of us -- homosexuals included -- have a conscience (that other-dimensional standard that God has tucked away inside each of us) that causes inner conflict when we're doing the wrong thing. But if we tumble into the grip of dark forces we don't understand and then start to defend our obsessions and compulsions, we inevitably come to regard our conscience as an enemy. And although we may be somewhat successful in drowning out that inner warning bell, what happens when this same rejected conscience factor appears in anotehr person and gets too close to us for comfort? We feel threatened.
Therefore, we feel compelled to silence the "voice of conscience" -- not just the one inside of us, but the one in other people, which tends to revive our own conscience with which we're at war. This means we can't tolerate dissent. We simply can't stand it. It makes us want to scream.
To the homosexual living in denial, then, even a loving offer of help from, say, a Christian ex-gay ministry or "reparative therapy" counselor (to help overcome homosexual addiction) feels like the most vile, abusive hatred. In fact, it's real love -- which we misinterpret as hatred and "bigotry" simply because it causes us to confront a truth that is not welcome in us.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 3rd, 2014 at 05:24 PM.
|March 3rd, 2014||#10|
LOVE AND REDEMPTION
When all is said and done, the "mainstreaming" of homosexuality over the last few decades has been a great tragedy. But of all the societal confusion, chaos, and corruption it has ushered in, the most tragic dimension of all is what it has done to people struggling with homosexual and "transgender" attractions and compulsions.
Remember, our conflicts contain the seeds of redemption -- that is, as long as we know we have a problem, there's hope for a change. But if we deny there's a problem, we are literally robbed of the chance to find healing. That's exactly what America has done in buying into the "gay rights" movement. We have betrayed our homosexual brothers and sisters. Oh noes...we have failed our queers! And our niggers!
Glorifying dysfunctionality and corruption, we have relieved homosexuals of their inner conflict they once felt over their condition -- something they desperately need, indeed all of us need, if we're ever going to overcome our problems and find wholeness.
A generation ago, we understood there is such a thing as sin, and that sin is a serious matter and to be avoided. Now there is no societal consciousness of sin -- only limitless "freedom," "choice," and "consensual relationships." Beguiled by our scientific and technological advances into believing we are enlightened, in reality as we move further and further away from our Judeo-Christian spiritual roots, we actually understand lesa and less about ourselves. Most of all, we've forgotten as a society what love is, because supporting and justifying homosexuality is not real love any more than glorifying drinking helps the alcoholic or celebrating smoking helps wipe out lung cancer.
We defend our own corruption at great peril. And if defending that corruption becomes a national movement, as it has with our cultural and legal adoption of the "gay rights agenda," we're all in serious trouble.
In truth, most homosexuals experience guilt and conflict when they first discover homosexual urges. Thus there is a strong temptation -- especially in today's pro-"gay" culture -- for them to "resolve" the conflict by giving in to the compulsion and affirming, "It's okay to be gay." But if they do, there is just no way out for them. For this reason, the most loving stance for others to take is not to serve as enablers of self-destructive and immoral compulsions, but to stand in patient but firm opposition. Not firm butts, but-firms.) In other words, we need to side with the afflicted person's conscience.
In America, we've done the opposite.
"Hating the sin but not the sinner," the classic Christian expression for loving your struggling neighbor by nonjudgmentally disagreeing with his errant behavior, actually has great power -- more than we realize. By resisting the temptation to hate, yet still standing firm against what's wrong, God's love is able to come through that obedient "neutral zone." Maybe you're not strong enough to hate. The queers are. They hate you and dominate you. They make less of you. If you were strong enough to hate and dominate them, there would be less of them. Which you're saying is a good thing. You're saying, in effect, without realizing it: losing is the only moral position. This goes not just for homosexuality but for the entire range of jew-forced social changes.
We started this journey into the world of "gay rights" with the poignant words of former congressman Robert Bauman, who said: "I did not choose to be homosexual. I would change my sexual orientation if that were within my power." Sadly, we've failed Bauman and millions suffering with similar sexual problems by glorifying and pandering to their dysfunction and pretending it's normal.
In the end, we have to ask ourselves which is worse -- the previous era in America, when homosexuals were revilved and driven underground? Or today's America, when the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that those in the grip of powerful self-destructive compulsions are fawned over and lionized as heroes?
Either way, because the rest of us have failed to find real love, they remain victims.
I let this crissy sissy run on so you see the traditional christain view of queers. The homo strategy part ended well above. The point is, homos pursued a carefully thought out strategy. That's point the first. And their strategy required mass-media complicity. Or perhaps better put, approval from authority. They had these, and never had any doubt of them. Basically, their strategy of drown out, defame and draw in (desensitize, jam, convert) worked well. Now some WN dolt will think we can just repeat it ourselves, as you often hear dolts say about the black civil rights movement. That's why I've emphasized throughout: you cannot pull off this strategy with newsletters and websites - you require the people broadcasting cable tv to be on your side. Without that, your strategy cannot work. Can't be overemphasized. This is why I came up with the mnemonicism: jews (and could be as well said of queers) are the only people who control the mass media - or need to. They need to, I shouldn't need to say but probably do, because without control of the mass media, jews and homosexualists are a freak-alien-weirdo 2% and 1% of the population. Can't get anything done. With the mass media, they are the functional majority. They simply shame or shut out the competing majority view. Get it?
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 10th, 2014 at 11:43 AM.
|March 8th, 2014||#11|
Bread and Circuses
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
Last edited by RickHolland; March 8th, 2014 at 08:53 PM.
|March 8th, 2014||#12|
Bread and Circuses
How 'gay rights' is being sold to America
David Kupelian on how marketing magic is 'normalizing' sexual perversion
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/10/32898/#wbjoRTl5ARiCvwIG.99
STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"
The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media
Homosexual Agenda Psy-ops Playbook "After the Ball..." Exposed
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44c_1...GIXK0gVp8Vr.99
|June 18th, 2014||#13|
Bread and Circuses
Dr. Nicholas Andrew Cummings explains in great detail how gay activist got into control of American psychology in the 1970's and manipulated it from then on ...
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
Last edited by RickHolland; June 18th, 2014 at 07:02 AM.
|June 20th, 2014||#14|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Oh BROTHER; with a last name like "Cummings" ,that unintentionally plays right into the queers' hands;the queers love to make fun of people opposed to queers,with names that have double entendre written all over them,and will spew the nastiest put-downs.
|June 21st, 2014||#15|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
antonio gramsci's long march through the institutions is complete. no?
Dr. William Pierce
|June 21st, 2014||#16|
Bread and Circuses
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage an essay on the homosexual revolution Micheal swift (video)