Many schemes for pushing pro-homosexual propaganda through the media were hatched. If not for the internet, I would be distraught. Right now, I'm just annoyed. It's no surprise that most journalists are pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-Christian, anti-family, and are usually liberals. But to be so bold as say they will purposefully avoid going to Christian sources for new stories because they won't bow to the SIG (Sexuality Is God) is startling, even by today's low journalistic standards.
Do you know what is so amusing? Their talk about "telling the truth" as journalists. Here is an excerpt from the article, 'Gay’ Journalism Conference Panel Targets Religious Influence on Public Policy (emphasis and comments mine):
Organizer Mitchell Gold claimed the purpose of his session, titled “Oh God! (or Allah…Or Buddha): Reporting on Issues of Faith & Religion,” (The title should have been "Lying About Issues of Faith & Religion) was to discuss how homosexual journalists can report more accurately on religion. (Easy answer: They can't because they loathe religion with every molecule of their being. Religion is Enemy Number One to them.)
If that was really Gold’s purpose, then he recruited a very odd panel of experts. The panel included just one journalist, David Waters of The Washington Post. The other participants were former United Methodist minister Jimmy Creech, Episcopal seminary president Ian Markham, and Ann Craig, Director of Religion, Faith & Values for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
The discussion quickly degenerated into a seminar on how journalists can “conquer” the religion debate to advance the homosexual political agenda. Not surprising, given that Gold, a furniture magnate, is the founder of Faith in America, a homosexual activist organization targeting the religious community. (And if you are a Christian and want to increase your blood pressure, you can check out his site which has an ad for a site, "Would Jesus Discriminate?" It claims the traveling Ethoipian was the 'first gay' converting to the church because...he was a eunuch. Which I suppose to this guy meant he was 'gay.')
According to Gold, “the single biggest [obstacle] to gays having equal rights in the country is religion,” so “I set myself to learn about it.” GLAAD’s Craig said, “We’re not getting anyplace until we begin conquering the debate” in the religious community. (Read: Conquering faithful Christians so they have no choice but to embrace homosexuals and bow to SIG.)
David Waters, editor of the “On Faith” blog, which appears on The Washington Post and Newsweek Web sites, urged reporters “not to go” to established leaders like Robertson and Dobson, contrasting them to “real people”:
I think, as journalists, our No. 1 obligation is obviously to the truth, and if we’re going to be about the truth then we have to fight and we have to fight for space and for time to tell the right story and to tell the real story, (Wait. So the "real story" isn't Americans being rightly concerned about coercion and control within the media?) and I think the best way to go about that, at least I’ve found in my experience with my own reporting and with other reporters, is to take time and not go to the Pat Robertsons and the James Dobsons of the world but to find the real people who are really struggling with this issue. (In other words, change the conversation on same-sex marriage and how most Americans do not agree with it because you don't like the truth. Instead, gin up sympathy by placing gays as victims. Sure, Christians are getting railroaded out of the discussion but the gays are the victims...)
This is what annoys me. These "journalists" are intentionally creating the story. Forget that there are real people who hold opposing views and beliefs. They're not wanted. Instead, the media would much rather paint a rosy little picture of everyone agreeing to all the demands of the gay mafia.
There is no journalism anymore. Only storytelling. Those in the mainstream media are only telling their stories - and trying to pass it off as truth.
3 comments:
Sorry for the long quote but here goes...
"...After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.
In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth. The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was enough media-and enough money-to put them to work in the United States. And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.
They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were "just like everyone else." This would make the engine of prejudice run out of steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference.
They would jam the public by shaming them into a kind of guilt at their own "bigotry." Kirk and Madsen wrote:
All normal persons feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack....The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame...when his homohatred surfaces. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths....It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause.
The best thing about this technique, according to Kirk and Madsen: The bigot did not even have to believe he was a loathsome creature:
Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective-if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.
Finally-this was the process they called conversion-Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among bigots, "if we can actually make them like us." They wrote, "Conversion aims at just this...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."
In the movie "Philadelphia" we see the shaming technique and the conversion process working at the highest media level. We saw Tom Hank's character suffering (because he was gay and had AIDS) at the hands of bigots in his Philadelphia law firm. Not only were we ashamed of the homophobic behavior of the villainous straight lawyers in the firm; we felt nothing but sympathy for the suffering Hanks. (Members of the Motion Picture Academy felt so much sympathy they gave Hanks an Oscar.) Our feelings helped fulfill Kirk and Madsen's strategy: "to make Americans hold us in warm regard, whether they like it or not."
Few dared speak out against "Philadelphia" as an example of the kind of propaganda Kirk and Madsen had called for. By then, four years after the publication of the Kirk-Madsen blueprint, the American public had already been programmed. Homosexuality was now simply "an alternate lifestyle." Best of all, because of the persuaders embedded in thousands of media messages, society's acceptance of homosexuality seemed one of those spontaneous, historic turnings in time-yes, a kind of conversion. Nobody quite knew how it happened, but the nation had changed. We had become more sophisticated, more loving toward all, even toward those "afflicted" with the malady-excuse me, condition."
Source
Lynne, sorry for the delayed response but I wanted to thank you for such an enlightening comment. Wow. It is amazing in its audacity and - (speaking of shame...) shamelessness.
Kirk and Madsen present what is, for many Christians, an erroneous premise. I may mull this over and comment more on a separate entry. The premise is that Christians "hate" homosexuals and believe the issue is one of "making Christians like gays." As though our concern for their eternal life is not proof of "like."
I am hoping more Christians stand up to the relentless propaganda. I refuse to feel "shamed" because they don't own my emotions.
I am reminded again of the graffiti spray-painted on the side of a building. It was an image of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, arm and arm. Below was the demand, "Get Used To It." I knew exactly what it meant and as I looked at it, I said aloud, "No. Get used to the fact that God does not approve of your behavior and many others consider it abnormal."
And isn't it interesting that homosexuals would be interested in a seminal work on totalism?
Thanks for your feedback, Mary Rose.
My point was that although many, like yourself, have begun to notice the homosexual indoctrination going on in society, it began a long time ago. Kirk and Madsen wrote their book in the 90's but a lot went between 60's (the Stonewall riots occurred in 1969) and the 90's.
Post a Comment