The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda

Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with an gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city.

Five years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of my newspaper concerning how the paper was becoming an organ of gay advocacy. I forwarded the letter to a group who received regular mailings from me. One man responded and disclosed himself as a gay. He accused me of wanting to submit gays to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. He used several abusive terms which reminded me of other encounters I have had with gays including the individual mentioned in the first paragraph. I replied that I refused to be bullied and intimidated into silence.

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

I learned about jamming by reading the articles How America Went Gay, and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is the Author of the book, Homosexuality: A Freedom too Far (1995). Socarides drew a lot of his information about the program which involves "jamming" from the book After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's (1990) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This book is a blueprint for gay activists for applying brainwashing techniques developed by the totalitarian regime of Communist China. These techniques were catalogued in Robert Jay Lifton's seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (1989).

The program borrowed from the Chinese and put forward for gay activism by Kirk and Madsen involves three steps: 1) desensitization, 2) jamming, and 3) conversion.

1) Desensitization — Through constant exposure to homosexuals on television, in the movies, on radio, and in the newspapers, the public would become accustomed to gays being a normal part of their life. The image conveyed would be that gays are ordinary people like everyone else. As the gays came out of the closet to show a public face, the startling aspects of gay perversion and pathology would be left in the closet — concealed from the public eye. The goal of desensitization is public indifference.

2) Jamming — The object of jamming is to shame gay opponents into silence. The shame comes from the accusation of bigotry and social stigmatization.

"All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack...The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicted 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. (Kirk and Madsen)

Notice the two elements — the shaming of the alleged "bigot" by making him feel like a social pariah and the depiction of the suffering gay to win sympathy. In my personal experience, I have met with two versions of the shaming tactics from gays. The first is the personal attack (ad hominem, meaning "against the man"). The ad hominem attack ignores the logic and facts put forward by the opponent and accuses him of being a bigot, i.e., a shameful being. The insult is pure assertion and unsupported by facts. It is essentially a threat to socially stigmatize the person if he does not desist from his opposition to the gay agenda.

This tactic is very effective in a politically correct group-think environment — such as college campuses and news rooms. Politicians as a class, are extremely sensitive to the threat of being publicly stigmatized. Remember Kirk and Marsden's idea that "...people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack." These may be primitive wolf-pack group-think tactics but they are powerful none the less.

Almost all of us has been through this kind of thing. A perfect example is the high school clique. Retribution for violating the code of the clique involves public shaming and expulsion and demonization. One becomes an "untouchable" — a pariah to every clique and caste in the school.

A study of the life cycle of a business found that the terminal stage of decline was when group-think prevailed. At this point the in-group became an end in itself and the customer became an inconvenient nuisance. James F. Welles, Phd., wrote The Story of Stupidity, which examined historical eras in which many people were seized by a self-destructive collective stupidity. In each case, group-think prevailed and rationality ans independent thought was driven out. "Political correctness" is a form of contemporary group-think which drives out common sense. This poisoned environment created the opportunity for the abusive nonsense of gay "jamming" to flourish. However toxic and destructive wolf-pack group-think is, it is a powerful temptation which man, a social animal, is prone to, and which dictators make use of.

When I testified before the Ohio Senate Committee on the Defense of Marriage (DOM) Act, the Republican committee chairman who favors the act, allowed those against DOM to repeatedly make charges of bigotry and hatred against those who favored DOM. He allowed them to run on with no time limit as they painted the gay lifestyle in glowing terms and wallowed in their personal pain from bigotry. However, he did not allow those in favor DOM to answer the charges of bigotry or refute any of the assertions the anti-DOM folks made. He refused to allow experts to speak about the tragic realities of the homosexual lifestyle. Why? He probably did not want to be called a "bigot" in front of the TV cameras. He was scared to death of public jamming and shaming. Even though he voted for DOMA he was terrified at being publicly branded as not being "one of the pack." This accords perfectly with Chinese brainwashing techniques. Consider Kirk and Marsden again:

"...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. This approach can be quite useful and effective — if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends."

The gays have indeed been given massive public exposure by liberals on TV, the movies, and the print media. This aggressive use of the media has been a priority of the agenda of gay leaders at least since 1971.

The "frisson of doubt" inserted through emotional conditioning is especially effective on men in the clergy. They view themselves as men of conscience and compassion — and like to be seen by others as such. Thus, when the pastor speaks in accord with the scriptures and calls gay sexual practices a sin, he may feel an almost unconscious shiver of doubt and shame. It is not the shame of violating a universal moral law or upholding the truth of the Bible. It is the shame of violating a social taboo and the fear of being seen by men that he is lacking in compassion and sensitivity. It plays to the ultimate fear of many pastors, the fear of public disgrace.

Denominations like the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists are in a pitched battle over whether to ordain gays, or to bless gay unions. Many of the theological moderates and many of the Bishops have taken to saying that they are "open" to hearing both sides. By taking no public position they hide from the threat of being defamed by one side as being a "bigot" and a "hater" or being charged by the other side with being unscriptural.

The resistance against the gay agenda in the churches is left to the most conservative, the most principled, and those most willing to stand alone. Those who love God and truth more than they hate being publicly slimed by the gay activists and their liberal allies must often bear a heavy cost. When the liberal clergy seize control of a denomination and back a gay agenda, they ostracize the conservatives who oppose the gay agenda and exclude them from the seminaries, from denominational committees, and from speaking engagements. So much for liberal "tolerance" and "inclusion."

One aspect of the shaming technique is to portray how much pain the gay suffers as a result of the intolerance of the bigot. The movie Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks, is a media tour de force in getting wide audiences to sympathize with the sufferings of a gay man and to be disgusted with the persecutions of his bigoted tormentors. Everyone who places a high value on compassion is bound to be swayed by the movie. It is one of the greatest masterpieces of propaganda ever put on screen. The not so subtle message is — "Shame on you bigots for not giving your approval to the cute and sensitive Tom Hanks — who just happens to be gay." With one stroke, the bigots are jammed and shamed and the gay wins sympathy. Brilliant propaganda — that. The Chinese would be proud.

The third step is conversion of the public to be receptive to the gay agenda. Conversion requires a change of heart. The change of heart will occur "...if we can actually make them like us," says Kirk and Madsen. "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 media." When the audience begins to sympathize with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, the process of conversion has begun.

On television, gay comedienne Ellen de Generous once used abrasiveness in comedy. Since her public disclosure that she is a lesbian, she has emphasized personal likability. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy emphasizes a goofy cuteness and sweetness. Public likability has eluded the hard-boiled Ellen but the "fab five" of Queer Eye have been fantastically successful in winning the sentimental favor of the public. No line is too sappy and no situation too mushy for the fab five. Don't you just want to hug them? Folks, this is conversion. Serious conversion. Never underestimate the gushy sentimentality of the American public. The cuteness of Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin did more to turn public sentiment away from slavery than all the abolitionists combined.

The big lie technique has been used by almost all totalitarians. As explained by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, "Tell a lie, make it a big one, repeat it often enough, and a lot of people will believe it." The Chinese propaganda techniques used for the gay agenda are more sophisticated than the bombastic Nazi methods. But as true totalitarians seeking mind control, the people behind the gay agenda is promoting three big lies: 1. Homosexuality is genetically determined, 2. Change is not possible, and 3. Gay rights are part of the civil rights agenda. Homosexuality is placed on a par with race and gender. According to the gay agenda, these truths are obvious. No debate is needed. Opposition to these points signifies bigotry.

1. Genetic determinism — Genes determine human choices and the trajectory of human development, we are told. This means that the gay is a programmed automaton and has no choice but to perform those sexual acts which the genes dictate. A full menu of sexual perversions are written into the genes and require only the right opportunity and stimulation to express themselves. This is nonsense, of course. Gays have free will and choice as do every human being. Sexual perversions must be learned through some combination of experimentation and instruction.

At present, there seems to be no scientific evidence linking particular genes to particular sexual practices. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary. A sample of 90,000 identical twins (who have the same genes) shows no meaningful correlation of the sexual preference for twins raised apart. Fraternal twins had a higher correlation. If genetic determinism was true, there should be 100% correlation. (Source: Bearman & Bruckner, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 107, No 5, 2002)

The Journal of Homosexuality, a gay publication, reports that certain gay-gene studies and gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. Many gays want the truth instead of the big lie. Others prefer the big lie. The author of one of the criticized gay-gene studies is under investigation for science fraud by the National Institutes of Health for Science Fraud.

Dr. Socarides says that one third of his former gay patients are now married and most have children. This corresponds with the success rate of the Betty Ford clinic. Another third of Socarides patients remain homosexual but are not part of the gay scene. They report more control over their impulses and a more responsible approach to sex. The point is that two thirds of his patients made positive changes to some extent. This excludes the blanket assertion that gays can't change.

Gay sexual activities is a behavior. Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics which are fixed at birth. No moral judgement can be made of race and gender because no one chooses their race or gender.

In contrast, a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influences the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgements.

Genes determine human choices

But, of course, Gays cannot ‘pass’ their genes on to subsequent generations - because they cannot procreate.

Therefore, GAYNESS is NOT genetic.

It’s a “CHOICE”

I stand FIRM in this proclamation.

Re-Education Camps, here I come...

Gays are queer fellows. I don’t want them around any children left unattended. They say they are not predisposed towards pedophelia but the evidence and history of sexual molesting cases involving children suggests otherwise. That’s all I need to know.

With a Gay President you can't but they can't have kids so they defeat themselves.Just looking for new backsides.I once received a phone call at an unexpected place.It was during a dinner and before cell plones.They wanted a personality that I was working with.It was from someone close to the President long before we knew his name but her name is well know.It was to star in a movie
.I was willing to help him with the Union fee's.Only later did I find out you had to be gay to have the part-have gay sex.The part was not gay.He kept saying no.Now I understand.

Something I noticed in the late 80's: whenever stand up comics would start doing jokes on gays, even jokes that weren't necessarily offensive maybe just stating stereotypes, a noticeable group of people in the audience would start hissing. Usually the rest of the audience would then be shocked into silence.

Even on shows like Saturday Night Live the normally leftist comics would get the hiss treatment if they ever did bits with gay characters that were anything but celebratory.

I believe Norm MacDonald lost his job because of one joke against Magic Johnson and one against Michael Jackson that could be taken as anti-gay by humorless idiots with thin skins.

My feeling is that the audiences were stacked by organized groups of gay advocates. There were a number of comics that were still doing bits that were meant to offend everyone like Dice Clay, etc. I think the gays decided they had enough of that and decided to hiss everyone off stage who didn't stick to the program.

I can remember the look of complete surprise on the faces of some of the comics when they were doing stuff that must have killed in the clubs, but was met with a barrage of hissing when they finally got their first TV appearances.

This "jamming" has been going on for some time IMHO.

There are comics like Norm MacDonald, who everyone with even a modicum of brains in their head, knows is basically conservative. If he does a gay joke, he gets canned.

Comics like Zach G. and Patton Oswalt can get away with gay jokes because they have liberal street cred. They have done enough sets that everyone knows they are safe lefties. If they do gay bits then its OK because they're just being ironic.

The hissing has let up lately. Maybe the gays, since being out and "proud", feel less threatened. Or maybe they're just getting fat, lazy, and disorganized like the rest of us.

Homosexuals are like hysterical silly shallow self obsessed narcissists Girls Gone Wild with a penis instead of vagina

The very worst qualities we generalize about women with frat boy lust and a c*ck and juevos thrown in for good measure

Which is why homosexuals were scorned throughout history even in antiquity and Greece and Rome contrary to revisionist claptrap

They are simply put neurotic....screwed up.

While "Gay" is one of several current topics I am way beyond being sick and tired of hearing about, this is a helpfully informative article.

It's interesting how the most psychologically damaged are often the most adept and effective at using psychology against, and to control, those around them.

It's also interesting how many of our reactions and behavior are automatic and if someone can push the right buttons we dance predictably, whether we are aware of it or not.

The faggies didn’t win during Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day last year.

In fact, their threats of property invasions & gross behavior completely fizzled. The faggie who chewed out that Chick Fil-A gal just for working there lost his job.

Restaurants filled with Dads, children, & other straight people (the “breeders” hated by faggies) proved to be too formidable a target.

The One Percenters don’t own us yet. When one’s entire universe centers around the way one has sex, it’s a dead end street, usually around age 42.

They haven’t completed their victory, but it doesn’t take a lot of smarts to see the direction of the trend.

Their Chick Fil-A and Duck Dynasty failures are more appropriately seen as temporary skirmish defeats in a widespread general advance.

The Polish Army of WWII had localized successes against the Wehrmacht. Didn’t make any difference in the long, or even medium, run.

Just to give an obvious example. I believe in 2010 and before, every time gay marriage came up for a popular vote, it was defeated.

In 2012 I believe they all, or most anyway, passed.

That’s a huge change in a very short time. Extrapolate the trend a few years and where are we?

I’ll never forget what the big media story was when judges struck down the first amendments/laws in this wave after the SC’s DOMA decision. It was about a cable reality show star saying he thought gay acts were gross right before Christmas. The station suspended him, the show’s merch sold out for Christmas as folks bought it in solidarity and they reinstated him in time for the premier episode of the new season which got record ratings. I’m sure A&E is considering suspending one of those guys every year right before Christmas.

That was the big story, even on FR. There was probably 40 threads about duck dynasty for every one about actual state amendments being struck down.

FReegards

All true.

That there are occasional setbacks for a cause does not mean it is not headed towards victory.

The Allies did not enjoy the initial days of the Battle of the Bulge, but it did not change the outcome of either the battle or the war.

BTW, I’m firmly on what I expect to be the losing side. Just don’t see how a pretense that we’re not in the process of losing is any particular help.

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.