Posted on 04/27/2007 3:45:23 PM PDT by Coleus
In the terrible Cultural War afflicting the contemporary world, the most effective and destructive weapons are not bullets or bombs but rather ideas, concepts and words that attack traditions and institutions. Indeed, the most intense struggle now facing the nation is one of beliefs, ideas and convictions. Bombs may kill, wreak havoc and terrify consciences. However, they only influence man from the outside in an indirect and not always effective way. A proof of this is the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Instead of causing the panic and discouragement the terrorists might have hoped for, the attacks stirred up indignation, condemnation and defiance in American public opinion. Thus, it is incredibly easier to react to a bombing than to an offensive of ideas, especially when they are presented in a sly and furtive way, and when sophisms are hidden behind a seeming evident yet false common sense.
The Talismanic Word
In his study, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue,1 Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira describes how propagandists use certain words that by their glitter can easily deceive people. He termed these words as “talismanic” since they seem to possess an almost magic power to influence the public.
Prof. Corrêa de Oliveira describes the talismanic word thus:
“[It]is one whose legitimate meaning is congenial and, at times, even noble; but it is also a word that has some elasticity. When it is used tendentiously, it begins to shine with a new radiance, fascinating the patient and taking him much farther than he could have imagined.” “The talismanic words correspond to what the media generally considers modern, pleasant and attractive. Thus, the lecturers, speakers, or writers who use these words do so for the sole reason of seeing their chances of a good reception in the press, radio, or television considerably enhanced. For this reason the person listening to the radio or the television or reading the newspaper will find these words used everywhere in every possible way, with growing repercussion in his soul.2
Diversity, a Talismanic Word
One such talismanic word used extensively by the homosexual movement is diversity. When doing research on sites and publications of the movement (not recommended except in overriding necessity), one sees this talismanic word used very much as a conceptual weapon. It is an “in” expression harboring a most dangerous sophism. However, the use and abuse of the word, diversity, is not confined to publications directly connected to the homosexual movement. A quick search shows that powerful corporations are using diversity in exactly the same sense employed by the homosexual movement. That is, it is presented in a way that legitimizes homosexual practice.
For example, we find on the web site of Johnson & Johnson, this statement:
“Our Credo Policies Recruiting Supplier Diversity Program .... At Johnson & Johnson, diversity is defined as a variety of similar and different characteristics among people, including age, gender, race, religion, national origin, physical ability, sexual orientation, thinking style, background and all other attributes that make each person unique.”3 Likewise, the site of Radisson Hotels reads: “Our commitment to diversity .... Diversity is not only Diversity of ethnic background and gender, but also age, sexual orientation and work and life experience.”4
Diversity in relation to what?
The problem is that diversity is a relative concept. It does not stand on its own but requires another concept with which it is related in order to have a meaning, as for example, the relative concepts of father and son, or right and left. Thus, it is not enough to speak of diversity: one must know the term of comparison that defines it. This comparison can be done by similarity, difference or contradiction.
Thus, diversity can be compared by difference when used in relation to culture, race, forms and colors. In this sense, diversity indicates a simple difference between things that are not contradictory but express a wholesome and enriching variety. However, diversity can also be used to indicate contradiction when it is compared to law, morality, truth and beauty. In this case, diversity will express its most absolute sense, defining itself by opposition and contradiction to those terms. So it is that when taken in relation to the law, diversity means illegality, in relation to morals, immorality, in relation to the truth, error and lies, and in relation to beauty, ugliness.
Sexual Diversity is opposed to the natural order
Now then, the theoreticians of the homosexual movement would have the public believe that homosexual practice is merely a different form of, or a diversity from heterosexual practice. And by using the technique of talismanic words, they cast aside the many meanings and nuances of the word, diversity. Instead they reduce diversity to a mere, legitimate and enriching difference. In this way, they carry out a real unperceived ideological transshipment, to use the expression coined by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira whereby someone opposed to a practice comes to sympathize with it. Thus, by this logic, if homosexual practice is merely a wholesome and legitimate variant of human sexuality, it should not only not be condemned but should be condoned and supported.
However, it happens that the term of comparison of sexual diversity is heterosexuality, which is not merely a possible form of sexuality, but the only one in conformance with human nature which is of itself heterosexual. Both the anatomy and physiology of the sexual organs which are part of the reproductive system indicate the natural complementariness between the sexes. Likewise, male and female are naturally disposed by their very psychology to be attracted by one another. Therefore, to speak of sexual diversity as being opposed to heterosexuality would be like saying diversity in relation to human nature is opposed to the order of nature itself. Such diversity would not be one of simple difference but rather one of contradiction. Now, what is opposed to, or contradictory with, human nature is anti-natural.
Logic destroys the efficacy of the Talismanic Word
In spite of all the artifices employed by the homosexual movement in using the talismanic word diversity, a simple logical analysis of it dispels the sophism and strips it of its alluring glitter. Diversity in sexual behavior is merely a sophisticated and deceitful way of referring to the acceptance of the act against nature which gave such sad notoriety to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorra. However much homosexual propaganda, supported by the liberal media, strives to spread confusion between the concepts of normality and abnormality regarding human sexuality, it will never convince men of common sense that homosexual practice is in accordance with human nature.
Indeed, it is only due to activist judges who have abandoned the impartiality of justice that the homosexual movement has been able to impose laws contrary to natural law. It is only because of liberal legislators that civil unions and other such measures have been imposed upon society. Furthermore, referenda held in many states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, have shown how public opinion is not deceived by those who cry diversity as a mask for acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the word diversity remains a important weapon in the arsenal of the those who would undermine traditional morality. Depriving the word of selective meaning is a means of fighting back.
[1] On line at http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/dialogue/dialogue_intro.html.
[2] http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/dialogue/dialogue_chp3.html.
[3] http://www.jnj.com/our_company/diversity/index.htm#.
[4] http://www.radisson.com/sectiontemplate.do?sidemenu=
aboutus.sidemenus§ion=aboutus.diversity.
.
Yep.
Perverted liberals don’t want tolerance. They want approval and promotion.
Interesting read. Yes, we are frequently told that we should “celebrate diversity”. And the “diversity” is usually homosexuality, cross dressing, transsexuality, bi-sexuality, or other permutations of sexual identity/behavior.
All of that is fine - the reason liberal agenda seems unstoppable is because every has one pet peave, one pet pleasure, which they can’t let go.
Unless everyone is willing to give up what they don’t want to give up, they lose the right to ask others to give up what others don’t want to give up.
I do agree, constantly bombarding the public with certain idea and to present it in a likeable and harmless manner has its benefits.
Sometimes its difficult to spot the cultural change while you are in middle of it.
However, there was one defining moment that I witness and it was too noticeable to not detect it.
When the first thing Klinton did, as soon as he got in the office was to put Gays in Military, the aftermath of that shock was such that one of the reasons, liberals lost control of Congress was that one incident.
However, people’s views of Gays did not remain constant or stationary after that point.
The very first move that media made was start introducing one likeable pleasant GAY character in popular sitcoms. Everytime such a character was introduced it drew scrutiny and thus publicity, but then the show continued and people forgot about it and moved on with their lives. There were first gay kisses, characters that started out as not gay, came out as gay, etc. Humor was their ally to take away the sting of the shock.
Eventually, after enough GAY characters and real gay-people were introduced to society, and admitting being gay started becoming a courageous and applause worthy act, now we have reached a point where a GAY characters in any movie or TV show seems NATURAL and not out of place.
Once media successfully normalizes a behavior, and once people start viewing that behavior as such, then its natural for opponents of those behavior to become opponents of what is considered ‘natural’, ‘happy’ and ‘good’. People keeping other people from what is ‘good’, obviously become the ‘enemies’, the ‘dark forces’ if you will.
Even if majority doesn’t like some idea, they are not able to stand up to it because they like something which would also have to go and they are unable to give it up.
So here we are, gay adoptions, unions, marriages....... Sodom and Gommorha are not born in a year but about 15 years....if my math is correct.
"Diversity is Perversity"
Love him or hate him, he nails it more than he misses.
Gays do not breed, therefore they must recruit, recruit, recruit.
Bookmarked.
Now that there’s true, I just wish they’d stop recruting in elementary public schools.
“Gay”, “Phobic”, “Fair share”, “Affirmative action”, “Choice”, “Assault weapon”, “Hate speech”, “Progressive”, “Chauvinist”, “Ecological”, “Rainforest”, “Free love”, “Old growth”, “Undocumented”... the list goes on and on.
I have never met a homosexual who wasn’t acting out on some socially induced issues...they are either angry or rebellious, vain, or envious, seekers of attention, etc. I do feel sorry or annoyed with some, the way I would for anyone whether they identify as homosexual or not, but when the politically motivated exploiters move in...well then they become dangerous.
“Compassion” is another one of those words. It usually means “tax increase”.
The sodomites say “diversity” when they really mean “perversity.”
You forgot “tolerance”
“... they are deranged.”
Agreed! And they want everyone to tolerate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.