T Nation

Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Politics and World Issues
#1

This is an excellent article exposing the tactics employed by homosexuals to brainwash the public:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.html

Providing quotes from the book After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, it exposes gay propagandists in their own words. The author outlines a three point strategy:

  1. Desensitisation. ‘We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.’

  2. Jamming. 'The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes - people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets–who are ‘not Christian.’

It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary.

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.’

  1. Conversion. 'It isn’t enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

We mean 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.’

#2

Really???

tweet

#3

[quote]theBird wrote:
Really???

tweet[/quote]

Trenchant, incisive forcefulness of thought.

#4

Every political advocacy has “tactics,” and every catalog of tactics has its ominous-sounding jargon. So all this does is prove that the gay rights movement is a political advocacy–and we already know that.

Beyond that, this is just a bunch of stuff written up by a barely-notable guy a quarter of a century ago.

#5

grabs popcorn

#6

There is also the fact that most these are really just tactics of intelligent argumentation with scary, Orwellian names attached.

For example: “Presented in the least offensive fashion possible.” This is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a convivial atheist. The former clouds his every speaking engagement with offense and belittlement, while the latter is free to keep the debate limpid and the evidence at the forefront. Though they are usually making the same scientific or philosophical argument, the convivial atheist is going to be more effective every time.

Or number 2, “Jamming.” I quote: “Propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes–people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets.” You may remember, Sexmachine, that I brought up the word “kike” in a recent argument about homosexuality. I did this despite not having ever read the book in question, and not for the purpose of “jamming.” I did it because, very simply, the connection between any derogatory epithet is very, very obvious. It is not necessary to have read a catalog of “tactics” in order to understand and make the point that, if I am permitted tautology, derogation is derogation.

I remember, a while back, some nitwit under the name Jaypierce was spouting a bunch of conspiracy nonsense around here. When some of us called his bullshit, he posted a list of disinformation tactics lifted from some conspiracy website. Sure enough, much of what was listed had indeed been done by us. Of course, this had nothing to do with our being operatives in the employ of the NWO or whatever the hell he was on about. It was because the listed “tactics” were really just things people say and do when they are debating social and political issues.

#7

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is also the fact that most these are really just tactics of intelligent argumentation with scary, Orwellian names attached.

For example: “Presented in the least offensive fashion possible.” This is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a convivial atheist. The former clouds his every speaking engagement with offense and belittlement, while the latter is free to keep the debate limpid and the evidence at the forefront. Though they are usually making the same scientific or philosophical argument, the convivial atheist is going to be more effective every time.

Or number 2, “Jamming.” I quote: “Propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes–people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets.” You may remember, Sexmachine, that I brought up the word “kike” in a recent argument about homosexuality. I did this despite not having ever read the book in question, and not for the purpose of “jamming.” I did it because, very simply, the connection between any derogatory epithet is very, very obvious. It is not necessary to have read a catalog of “tactics” in order to understand and make the point that, if I am permitted tautology, derogation is derogation.

I remember, a while back, some nitwit under the name Jaypierce was spouting a bunch of conspiracy nonsense around here. When some of us called his bullshit, he posted a list of disinformation tactics lifted from some conspiracy website. Sure enough, much of what was listed had indeed been done by us. Of course, this had nothing to do with our being operatives in the employ of the NWO or whatever the hell he was on about. It was because the listed “tactics” were really just things people say and do when they are debating social and political issues.[/quote]

In the style of the infamous Proffesor X: BEST POST.

#8

News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11.

#9

Do we ever do anything on here except for have the same people post the same stuff over and over again in an attempt to spark “discussion” over stuff they will never change their opinion on.

Posting in PWI makes less and less sense. Same people doing the same stuff ad nauseam. Enjoy reading a website with a booklet of what same sex marriage has done to Massachusetts.

Confirmation bias.

#10

[quote]H factor wrote:
Posting in PWI makes less and less sense. Same people doing the same stuff ad nauseam. [/quote]

The same can be said for any forum I suppose. Thanks for reminding me about this.

james

#11

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.

#12

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is also the fact that most these are really just tactics of intelligent argumentation with scary, Orwellian names attached.

For example: “Presented in the least offensive fashion possible.” This is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a convivial atheist. The former clouds his every speaking engagement with offense and belittlement, while the latter is free to keep the debate limpid and the evidence at the forefront. Though they are usually making the same scientific or philosophical argument, the convivial atheist is going to be more effective every time.

Or number 2, “Jamming.” I quote: “Propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes–people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets.” You may remember, Sexmachine, that I brought up the word “kike” in a recent argument about homosexuality. I did this despite not having ever read the book in question, and not for the purpose of “jamming.” I did it because, very simply, the connection between any derogatory epithet is very, very obvious. It is not necessary to have read a catalog of “tactics” in order to understand and make the point that, if I am permitted tautology, derogation is derogation.

I remember, a while back, some nitwit under the name Jaypierce was spouting a bunch of conspiracy nonsense around here. When some of us called his bullshit, he posted a list of disinformation tactics lifted from some conspiracy website. Sure enough, much of what was listed had indeed been done by us. Of course, this had nothing to do with our being operatives in the employ of the NWO or whatever the hell he was on about. It was because the listed “tactics” were really just things people say and do when they are debating social and political issues.[/quote]

I don’t employ those kind of tactics. Attacking people without reference to facts, logic or proof is a trademark of extremists.

#13

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?

#14

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3.

#15

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2762461/

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.

#16

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3. [/quote]

Not really. The only people I bear hatred towards are evil people such as murderers. And as I’ve said before I don’t believe that gays are any more evil than the rest of the population. What I do believe is that they are suffering from an illness. And I have sympathy for people who are sick.

#17

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3. [/quote]

Not really. The only people I bear hatred towards are evil people such as murderers. And as I’ve said before I don’t believe that gays are any more evil than the rest of the population. What I do believe is that they are suffering from an illness. And I have sympathy for people who are sick.
[/quote]

Like being born deaf or blind? On some levels, I agree with you. On other levels, I suspect society labeling them as “defective” contributes to the suicide and drug statistics you cited.

#18

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3. [/quote]

Not really. The only people I bear hatred towards are evil people such as murderers. And as I’ve said before I don’t believe that gays are any more evil than the rest of the population. What I do believe is that they are suffering from an illness. And I have sympathy for people who are sick.
[/quote]

Like being born deaf or blind? On some levels, I agree with you. On other levels, I suspect society labeling them as “defective” contributes to the suicide and drug statistics you cited.

[/quote]

If that were the case we should expect to see a significant decline in those numbers over the last 20 years owing to the increasing acceptance and normalisation of homosexuality in society.

#19

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is also the fact that most these are really just tactics of intelligent argumentation with scary, Orwellian names attached.

For example: “Presented in the least offensive fashion possible.” This is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a convivial atheist. The former clouds his every speaking engagement with offense and belittlement, while the latter is free to keep the debate limpid and the evidence at the forefront. Though they are usually making the same scientific or philosophical argument, the convivial atheist is going to be more effective every time.

Or number 2, “Jamming.” I quote: “Propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes–people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets.” You may remember, Sexmachine, that I brought up the word “kike” in a recent argument about homosexuality. I did this despite not having ever read the book in question, and not for the purpose of “jamming.” I did it because, very simply, the connection between any derogatory epithet is very, very obvious. It is not necessary to have read a catalog of “tactics” in order to understand and make the point that, if I am permitted tautology, derogation is derogation.

I remember, a while back, some nitwit under the name Jaypierce was spouting a bunch of conspiracy nonsense around here. When some of us called his bullshit, he posted a list of disinformation tactics lifted from some conspiracy website. Sure enough, much of what was listed had indeed been done by us. Of course, this had nothing to do with our being operatives in the employ of the NWO or whatever the hell he was on about. It was because the listed “tactics” were really just things people say and do when they are debating social and political issues.[/quote]

I don’t employ those kind of tactics. Attacking people without reference to facts, logic or proof is a trademark of extremists.
[/quote]

Except that that’s not what’s being pushed here.

When I talk about a connection between “faggot” and “kike,” I’m talking about a logical connection.

When I talk about a convivial atheist’s effectiveness relative to that of Richard Dawkins, I’m talking about the debater who’s better able to offer proof and facts.

#20

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is also the fact that most these are really just tactics of intelligent argumentation with scary, Orwellian names attached.

For example: “Presented in the least offensive fashion possible.” This is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a convivial atheist. The former clouds his every speaking engagement with offense and belittlement, while the latter is free to keep the debate limpid and the evidence at the forefront. Though they are usually making the same scientific or philosophical argument, the convivial atheist is going to be more effective every time.

Or number 2, “Jamming.” I quote: “Propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes–people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets.” You may remember, Sexmachine, that I brought up the word “kike” in a recent argument about homosexuality. I did this despite not having ever read the book in question, and not for the purpose of “jamming.” I did it because, very simply, the connection between any derogatory epithet is very, very obvious. It is not necessary to have read a catalog of “tactics” in order to understand and make the point that, if I am permitted tautology, derogation is derogation.

I remember, a while back, some nitwit under the name Jaypierce was spouting a bunch of conspiracy nonsense around here. When some of us called his bullshit, he posted a list of disinformation tactics lifted from some conspiracy website. Sure enough, much of what was listed had indeed been done by us. Of course, this had nothing to do with our being operatives in the employ of the NWO or whatever the hell he was on about. It was because the listed “tactics” were really just things people say and do when they are debating social and political issues.[/quote]

I don’t employ those kind of tactics. Attacking people without reference to facts, logic or proof is a trademark of extremists.
[/quote]

Except that that’s not what’s being pushed here.

When I talk about a connection between “faggot” and “kike,” I’m talking about a logical connection.

When I talk about a convivial atheist’s effectiveness relative to that of Richard Dawkins, I’m talking about the debater who’s better able to offer proof and facts.[/quote]

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays. Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.