Challenge Accepted: Conservative gay organization head agrees to debate WorldNetDaily editor

Barron told The Daily Caller that Farah challenged him to debate over whether GOProud can be considered “conservative” after Farah argued on his site that there is no place within conservatism for an organization like GOProud, a group that promotes itself as “the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies.” TheDC is waiting for confirmation from WND about the debate’s details.

Farah dropped Coulter from a speaking engagement at WND’s annual “Taking America Back” convention in Miami for agreeing to speak at GOProud’s “Homocon” party in New York. (Coulter later said that Farah had never actually booked her for a speech, calling him a “swine” and a “publicity whore.”)

Farah contends that groups like GOProud are trying to commit a “coup” to unroot the conservative movement with an “agenda…to take the homosexual agenda inside the conservative tent.”

Barron insists that his group is genuinely conservative and said he looks forward taking on Farah in front of a WND crowd.

“Since we announced that conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter would be headlining our Homocon 2010 in New York City, Farah has attacked GOProud, attacked Ann, and challenged our work almost every single day,” Barron said in a statement to The Daily Caller. “I look forward to standing on the stage with Mr. Farah to defend GOProud, to debunk the misinformation he has spread, and to make the case for GOProud’s conservative mission.”

Barron added that conservatism stands at a major crossroads in its acceptance of gays into the movement. A number of high profile conservatives, including Lisa De Pasquale of the Conservative Political Action Conference, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and former General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee Craig Engle, have signed on as official sponsors of GOProud’s event.

The debate will be held on September 17 at 7:30 PM at the Doral Golf and Spa Resort in Miami, Florida.

Here it is, got it a long time ago and have no idea where it came from originally, but it was here on FR (somewhere still, no doubt); I do not know who Lois Lament is. The comments, AFAIK, are hers.

Although homosexual propaganda has been around for 50 years, the current campaign started in 1989 with a very popular book within the homosexual community called: “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This very popular book within the homosexual community makes a passionate argument that homosexual activists should implement an organized propaganda campaign to change public opinion to gain public acceptance to their behavior and obtain special rights, benefits, and privileges. Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with them are “bigots, haters, or ignorants”, and therefore activists can and should justifiably employ any tactic possible, including mass deceit, lying, slander, maliciousness, intimidation, violence, etc.

Although many activists initially condemned this approach at first in public, remaining hold outs have jumped on board after benefitting from the success of the propaganda campaign. The following are exerpts taken from “After The Ball.” These strategies, tactics, and techniques have been and are currently employed by most homosexual activist groups, as verified by their well documented trail.

1) The homosexual agenda can succeed by conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through, a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda to the nation via media (page 153);

2) “Propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation that upon logic, since its goal is to bring about public change” (page 162);

3) Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);

4) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “desensitization” achieved by lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference (page 153);

5) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “jamming” and “confusing” adversaries, so as to block or counteract the “rewarding of prejudice” (page 153);

6) “Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds” (page 166)

7) “Desensitizing” is “our recipe” for converting “ambivalent skeptics”;

8) Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them (page 221);

9) The Nazi story of “pink triangle as a symbol of victimization” should be a sufficient opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies (page 190);

10) Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty;

11) Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)

12) Jam people by pointing out that it’s inconsistent with the reader’s belief in the value of love between individuals (page 233);

13) AIDS epidemic should be exploited “to increase attention and sympathy” as “victimized minority.”(page xxv)

14) “We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, 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” (page 184);

15) “Muddy the moral waters”, that is, to undercut the rationalization that justify religious opposition… this entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections” (page 179);

16) Portray opposing churches “as antiquated backwaters”, badly out of step with the time and with the latest findings of psychology (page 179);

17) Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);

18) The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (page 178);

19) All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in “Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice” (page 112)

20) It is acceptible to call people “Homophobic” or “Homohaters” if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)

21) A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);

22) Show others accepting gays and homosexuals (page 241);

23) Heterosexuals are like Aryans and people who are against homosexual behavior are “Nazis” and “Clansman”.

24) Homosexual persecution is identical to Jewish persecution (page 57, 62, );

25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);

26) All scientific/medical arguments to prevent 1973 APA/AMA removal from disorder list were rooted in cultural prejudice, medieval knowledge of science/medicine, and misinformation.

27) “Two-thirds of all boys” have rudimentary homosexual experiences (inferring most teenagers want to have homosexual sex) (page 44)

28) “Vast majority” of homosexuals do not engage in compulsive high-risk sex (page 49)

29) American opposition is based solely on prejudiced, outdated, and hypocritical Victorian morals (page 51)

30) All homosexually suicides are based entirely on societal rejection (page xv)

31) All sexual morality should be abolished (pages 64 to 67);

32) Homosexual civil rights are “explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights”;

33) Health concerns for AIDS prevention are unwarranted (page 91)

34) Opposition to homosexual marriages is based on “family nostalgia” and “sexual guilt” based on religious/Victorian values (page 92)

35) Adoption agencies have been “placing kids with gay people for a long time,” as long as “you do not bring up” the fact that your gay;

36) “Kids in gay households ultimately receive better-than-average parenting” (page 97)

37) All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under “clear and present danger to public order” (page 101)

38) All and any news or media coverage that is presents homosexual in negative form is prejudiced and invalid (page 54);

39) Everyone comes out must be prepped by a media campaign carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays (page 169);

40) “Gay activists have tried to manipulate the American judicial system.” Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which side step the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain rights (page 171);

41) “Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert on an emotional level” (page 173);

42) “Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and sponsors” (page 173);

43) “Ambivalent skeptics” are our most promising targets (page 176)…

44) Associate gay cause with “talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered.” (page 181)

45) Project gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers (page 183);

46) “Mustachioed leather men, drag queens, and bull dykes” should not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations (until later after wide acceptance) (page 183);

47) Groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in the medioa campaign (page 184);

48) Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice…graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation… (page 185);

49) In time we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image (i.e., drag queens, pedophiles, etc.) (page 186);

50) Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)

51) In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique” (page 190);

51) The media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as society’s victims and inviting straights to be their protectors (page 187);

52) We like television because it’s the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message (page 201)

53) Over the long-term, “television and magazines” are probably the media of choice (page 204);

54) Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207);

55) Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208);

56) Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media (page 213);

57) Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities (page 219);

58) The more people who appear to practice homosexuality, and the more innate it appears to be, the less abnormal and objectionable, and the more legitimate it will seem (which is why it is important to maintain claims to 10% of the population)(page 217)

59) Stage candid interviews with gays who appear as solid citizens. Subjects in commercials should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers (for now) (page 247);

60) Most people derive their impressions of the world through the national media (page 250);

61) It will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormentors, we cannot waste our resources on revenge alone (page 189);

62) “Too many Americans share this mistrust of gay citizens” (page 55);

It is so outrageous and evil what homosexual activists are up to, one does not know where to start. One does not know who to feel sorriest and embarrassed for: the “ambivalent skeptic” who could care less if they were being desensitized, manipulated, and used; reporters and media officials who fail to expose such fraud and fail in their jobs as public care takers of the truth; public officials who are afraid to stand up to these activists out of fear of reprisal; the parents of the children who are apathetic and indifferent and allow their children to be desensitized, manipulated, and reprogrammed; or the homosexual activists who preach of “gays having virtue and honesty” while actively participating in on-going “hate campaigns.”

Does the ends justify the means? Should any group in society be able to get away with such audacity and corruptness?

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.