Off Topic · The Homosexual Propaganda Campaign (page 1)

Desensitization: Talking about Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible

And I quote: “To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion. Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of anti gay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference. The principle behind this advice is simple. Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it. The way to benumb raw sensibilities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. Novelties cease to be novel if they just stick around long enough; they also cease to activate alerting mechanisms. You’ll have noted this in your own life: if you hear a protracted, earsplitting mechanical screech, you’ll either be so alarmed, or so annoyed, that you’ll be forced to take action; if you hear a softer–though, perhaps, nonetheless annoying–sound, like the ticking of a clock, and can’t shut it off, you will, eventually, shut it out, and may cease to hear it altogether. Apply this to the problem of homo hatred. If gays present themselves– or allow themselves to be presented–as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish. Straights will be desensitized.”

In the late 1980s, two homosexual activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, published an article and a book detailing a planned, psychological attack on the straight opponents of the homosexual movement, especially targeting their strongest opponents…born-again Christians. These publications rapidly became the main sources of strategic planning employed by homosexual activists to win over the hearts and minds of the heterosexual majority to their cause. Without the support of the heterosexual majority, Kirk and Madsen knew that the homosexual movement would be doomed to failure, because homosexuals make up only about 1.5% of the general population. These strategies involved a massive and ongoing propaganda campaign, fueled by the liberal media, that called for the following strategies: talking positively about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible, while keeping silent about the repulsive details of homosexual sex; creating an “Incompatible Emotional Response” in their opponents (called “Jamming”); portraying gays as victims, not as the aggressive challengers that they are; giving heterosexual protectors a just cause by couching their issues in terms of “rights” and “justice”; making gays look good by parading positive images of them before the public, using the liberal media to get their message out; and making the anti-gay victimizers look bad by comparing them to the worst elements of society. To them, it makes no difference that they are using lies to achieve their ends; they feel justified in doing so because, in their minds, they are using the lies to create an ethically good effect. These strategies constitute a large and essential component of the overall “gay agenda.” Present day gay activists vehemently deny both any knowledge of Kirk and Madsen and the influence of Kirk and Madsen on the strategies of today’s homosexual movement, but the actions and the words of gay activists themselves demonstrate that the legacy of Kirk and Madsen does, in fact, live on. Even Christian websites allow themselves to be used by the homosexual movement to carry out these psychological attacks against born-again Christians! Fortunately, the Bible has effective antidotes that born-again Christians can use to combat this insidious psychological assault.

Any time you can gain insights into widely used tactics like that it is an opportunity to learn how it all works. You can count that these tactics came from higher up and are used repeatedly in other areas.

IronWillGiroud wrote:You gay as hell playa!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinio...

BRIGGS wrote:Don't worry playa I think you'll be able to keep most men on the same team. A beautiful female arse still is the most precious commodity in the world:)

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi... You dayummmmm skippy!

jrodmc wrote:waiting for the internet shill troll to make an appearance for a few more of those Obamadollars from this thread...

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:waiting for the internet shill troll to make an appearance for a few more of those Obamadollars from this thread...

The only hostility I see is from you and Playa. No one else here seems to care

Bonn, get some context please. This is a joke about playa's latest conspiracy theory involving Nalod. Nalod understands, and it's not hostile.
http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

Is this just an outburst due to the possibility we might make the playoffs and Melo actually passing the ball?

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:waiting for the internet shill troll to make an appearance for a few more of those Obamadollars from this thread...

The only hostility I see is from you and Playa. No one else here seems to care

Bonn, get some context please. This is a joke about playa's latest conspiracy theory involving Nalod. Nalod understands, and it's not hostile.
http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

Is this just an outburst due to the possibility we might make the playoffs and Melo actually passing the ball?

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:waiting for the internet shill troll to make an appearance for a few more of those Obamadollars from this thread...

The only hostility I see is from you and Playa. No one else here seems to care

Bonn, get some context please. This is a joke about playa's latest conspiracy theory involving Nalod. Nalod understands, and it's not hostile.
http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

Is this just an outburst due to the possibility we might make the playoffs and Melo actually passing the ball?

Sorry. The other thread title seemed so ridiculous I didn't read it. My bad.

Hey, this doesn't mean we're gay, does it?

jrodmc wrote:waiting for the internet shill troll to make an appearance for a few more of those Obamadollars from this thread...

You know the rule, if you beckon me:

Beetlejuice, BeetleJuice, Beetlejuice

I will appear!!!

fishmike wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10... I saw this and immediatly thought of playa

I think he got banned or suspended. Haven't seen him in a while. I hated these threads but I do miss him and his eccentric ways.

I've never truly understood why race and sexual practice are equated. Would have loved to have actually heard MLK Jr.'s comments on it.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-d...

In a CNN report recently highlighted a 1958 letter published in Ebony magazine. In the letter, King responded to an anonymous boy who was confused about his homosexuality.

“I am a boy,” the anonymous person wrote. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

King, responded to the boy by calling his feelings toward the same gender a “problem,” but stating that he could find a “solution.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

However, despite King's clear reference to homosexuality as a "problem" and something "culturally acquired," others still choose to believe that King would have supported gay activists in today's era simply because he loved all people. The Rev. C.T. Vivian has expressed the belief that King would have had sympathy for the gay cause. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the late civil rights leader loved all people of God.

“Martin was a theologian,” Vivian said in a CNN report. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.”

However, most others do not come to the conclusion that just because King believed in God's love towards all people, that this would mean he would have supported gay activist agendas, such as the push to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. The generally held conservative Christian viewpoint is that God's love is indeed for everybody, but that homosexuality is described in the Bible as a sin, and that God's universal love would not equate to the acceptance of sinful actions, such as homosexual acts. King's own daughter has openly taken a strong stance against gay activism. In 2005, the Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father's grave, asking for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Bernice, who once attended Bishop Eddie Long's church, announced that she would begin her own ministry after a homosexual scandal developed in Long's congregation.

"I’m going to launch a ministry. I’m not calling it a church right now,” she said during an interview with Atlanta radio station Praise 102.5 last year. “What God is showing me doesn’t look like what people are accustomed to.”

At a conference in New Zealand, Bernice spoke about her father's position on homosexuality saying, "I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions."

Although the Rev. Peterson did not know King in the same way Bernice did, he acknowledged that the civil rights leader would most likely disapprove of the acts homosexuals were committing.

“Nothing indicates that he would think homosexuality is from God, normal and something that we should take on as right,” Peterson told CP. “He wouldn't tell us to hate homosexuals, but to show them how to overcome sin.”

Love and tolerance. Race and preference.

All depends on what you mean by "is", I suppose...

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, playa was banned. Where have you been? There's at least two other threads discussing the banishment.

I've never truly understood why race and sexual practice are equated. Would have loved to have actually heard MLK Jr.'s comments on it.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-d...

In a CNN report recently highlighted a 1958 letter published in Ebony magazine. In the letter, King responded to an anonymous boy who was confused about his homosexuality.

“I am a boy,” the anonymous person wrote. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

King, responded to the boy by calling his feelings toward the same gender a “problem,” but stating that he could find a “solution.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

However, despite King's clear reference to homosexuality as a "problem" and something "culturally acquired," others still choose to believe that King would have supported gay activists in today's era simply because he loved all people. The Rev. C.T. Vivian has expressed the belief that King would have had sympathy for the gay cause. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the late civil rights leader loved all people of God.

“Martin was a theologian,” Vivian said in a CNN report. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.”

However, most others do not come to the conclusion that just because King believed in God's love towards all people, that this would mean he would have supported gay activist agendas, such as the push to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. The generally held conservative Christian viewpoint is that God's love is indeed for everybody, but that homosexuality is described in the Bible as a sin, and that God's universal love would not equate to the acceptance of sinful actions, such as homosexual acts. King's own daughter has openly taken a strong stance against gay activism. In 2005, the Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father's grave, asking for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Bernice, who once attended Bishop Eddie Long's church, announced that she would begin her own ministry after a homosexual scandal developed in Long's congregation.

"I’m going to launch a ministry. I’m not calling it a church right now,” she said during an interview with Atlanta radio station Praise 102.5 last year. “What God is showing me doesn’t look like what people are accustomed to.”

At a conference in New Zealand, Bernice spoke about her father's position on homosexuality saying, "I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions."

Although the Rev. Peterson did not know King in the same way Bernice did, he acknowledged that the civil rights leader would most likely disapprove of the acts homosexuals were committing.

“Nothing indicates that he would think homosexuality is from God, normal and something that we should take on as right,” Peterson told CP. “He wouldn't tell us to hate homosexuals, but to show them how to overcome sin.”

Love and tolerance. Race and preference.

All depends on what you mean by "is", I suppose...

Well the banning was because of how Playa expressed his views, not the views per se.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, playa was banned. Where have you been? There's at least two other threads discussing the banishment.

I've never truly understood why race and sexual practice are equated. Would have loved to have actually heard MLK Jr.'s comments on it.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-d...

In a CNN report recently highlighted a 1958 letter published in Ebony magazine. In the letter, King responded to an anonymous boy who was confused about his homosexuality.

“I am a boy,” the anonymous person wrote. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

King, responded to the boy by calling his feelings toward the same gender a “problem,” but stating that he could find a “solution.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

However, despite King's clear reference to homosexuality as a "problem" and something "culturally acquired," others still choose to believe that King would have supported gay activists in today's era simply because he loved all people. The Rev. C.T. Vivian has expressed the belief that King would have had sympathy for the gay cause. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the late civil rights leader loved all people of God.

“Martin was a theologian,” Vivian said in a CNN report. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.”

However, most others do not come to the conclusion that just because King believed in God's love towards all people, that this would mean he would have supported gay activist agendas, such as the push to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. The generally held conservative Christian viewpoint is that God's love is indeed for everybody, but that homosexuality is described in the Bible as a sin, and that God's universal love would not equate to the acceptance of sinful actions, such as homosexual acts. King's own daughter has openly taken a strong stance against gay activism. In 2005, the Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father's grave, asking for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Bernice, who once attended Bishop Eddie Long's church, announced that she would begin her own ministry after a homosexual scandal developed in Long's congregation.

"I’m going to launch a ministry. I’m not calling it a church right now,” she said during an interview with Atlanta radio station Praise 102.5 last year. “What God is showing me doesn’t look like what people are accustomed to.”

At a conference in New Zealand, Bernice spoke about her father's position on homosexuality saying, "I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions."

Although the Rev. Peterson did not know King in the same way Bernice did, he acknowledged that the civil rights leader would most likely disapprove of the acts homosexuals were committing.

“Nothing indicates that he would think homosexuality is from God, normal and something that we should take on as right,” Peterson told CP. “He wouldn't tell us to hate homosexuals, but to show them how to overcome sin.”

Love and tolerance. Race and preference.

All depends on what you mean by "is", I suppose...

Well the banning was because of how Playa expressed his views, not the views per se.

He cut and paste something and then explained, like he does with everything from plane crashes to the weather in Honduras, as part of the great military-industrial complex conspiracy. I think if he could just have mastered the art of citing sources and using the quote function, he'd still be here. Oh well.

What I miss most about playa (I cannot believe I typed that) was that despite his pseudo-rightwing claptrap, it was sometimes difficult to understand who he thought was more evil, Bush or Obama...

Same sex marriage in the 1960's in the time we as a country was dealing with the civil rights movement, segregated schools and outright discrimination was not a time in my opinion for Dr King to take that issue on when he had his own cause to further.

Nalod wrote:In the time of Dr King there were laws outlawing some same sex activity, let alone acceptance.

Same sex marriage in the 1960's in the time we as a country was dealing with the civil rights movement, segregated schools and outright discrimination was not a time in my opinion for Dr King to take that issue on when he had his own cause to further.

Why not? Isn't the idea of Russ and others that it's the exact same cause?