Whew! I think that is the longest title I’ve ever employed on my blog. I prefer short titles. Oh well, let’s get crack-a-lackin’. We’ve got an interesting topic today with our continued exploration of David Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil. While desensitization is a largely subliminal tactic, jamming and conversion are the final two, covert steps of the Kirk and Madsen “war goal,” as outlined in their book After the Ball. These last two are strategies that we have actually witnessed time and again throughout this decades-long, subversive homosexual marketing campaign; witnessed…yet ignored, or denied, or just plain didn’t understand. In this post, we’ll explore how craftily jamming and conversion have been employed so as to avoid “tripping the alarm” and awakening the whole of society.
Jamming
Says marketing expert, Paul E. Rondeau of Regents University, “Jamming is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion.” Kupelian offers this example:
“Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program’s advertisers. As a result, the new show was stillborn.”
Another example of this is the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman and homosexual, Matthew Shepard. His brutal demise received massive media attention in which homosexual activists and the press teamed up to point a rigid finger at Christianity. The supposed offender was a Christian ad campaign that “offered to help homosexuals change their orientation.” NBC reporter David Gregory and Today’s Katic Couric were leaders in seeding the idea that religion was at the heart of the supposed discrimination toward homosexuals. In a telling interview following the Shepard’s murder, Couric ridiculously asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer:
“Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people to say, ‘If I meet someone who’s homosexual, I’m going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.’ Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?”
Right, if I see a homosexual, I will definitely try to forcibly make them change their sexual orientation...just because I saw a television ad that promotes the belief that they can. Is the chain of thought logical? No. Did the interview create a few more sympathizers regardless of its unreasonable nature? Absolutely. And it painted Christians as psychopathic zealots roaming city streets and policing individuals based on their looks and mannerisms. Jamming works. He who cries loudest and is heard most often will gain ground the fastest. Why? Because people will either turn away and ignore you for the illusion of peace and quiet or they will eventually truly believe you must be right because, well, you’re everywhere and you’re loud and there aren’t any other opinions coming through the loudspeaker, so they must not exist!
“Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen’s playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers. In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals – in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.
As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn’t a factor in Shepard’s murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.”
We are no strangers to jamming today. In fact, its latest epic and blatant resurfacing occurred immediately following the Proposition 8 victory when homosexual activists, frenzied in their disappointment, went straight for the Christian jugular, ripping and snapping at the LDS Church for its members’ contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign. Once again, truth was lost in the noisy din and chaos of marches, protests, vandalism, terrorism, violence, intimidation, threats, and demands. And when the sound died down and the crowds dispersed, many believed the close of the frightening emotional display heralded an end to the wild accusations. Once again the public turned its back from the offensive outbursts and returned, instead, to complacent apathy. The media, on the other hand, now taking a break from its abhorrent bias as was demonstrated during the presidential debates, simply ignores the anarchical reaction of homosexual activists, dropping one or two ridiculous and biased comments here and there (“What were seeing, quite honestly, is a lot of anger and a lot of hate ON BOTH SIDES” – ???), reporting half-heartedly about violent protests while dedicating much time and energy to following farcical leads on defamatory allegations toward the Mormon Church, the Yes on 8 campaign, marriage and family organizations and leaders, etc.
Jamming = Don’t let the opposition get a word in edgewise. Defame, denigrate, out-scream, out-yell, but for goodness sake, don’t let them speak, don’t let them be heard!
Conversion
According to Kirk and Madsen, conversion is defined as follows:
“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. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.”
Hm…”whether they like it or not.” Now where have I heard that before? Someone has been reading After the Ball. The audacity of these two is simply breathtaking. Converting America’s will, planning psychological attacks, feeding propaganda via the media, subverting the mechanism of prejudice, turning hatred into warm regard, and the last defiant straw that breaks my back - all this is carried out “whether you like it or not.” Kirk and Madsen go on to explain this classic brainwashing:
“Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement.”
In other words, in order to not lose our friends, if we see them accepting homosexuality, it is in our nature to accept it as well so as to preserve our primary relationships and align our emotions with those of our peers. After all, if our peers are accepting it, it must be okay, right? Asks David Kupelian, “Do the homosexual activists thus engaged really know they’re deceiving the public, or are they convinced they’re just telling the truth?”
“’It makes no difference that the ads are lies,’ write Kirk and Madsen, ‘not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.’”
“It makes no difference that the ads are lies….” Welcome to Machiavellianism at its brashest. The glorified ends justify the despicable means. Sadly, this only works in an unprincipled culture. What does this say about our ignorant society unwilling to look evil square in the face and call it what it is, with a refusal to embrace it as anything else?
Well Pearl People, that’s all for today’s discussion on jamming and conversion. Next up from The Marketing of Evil will be the “homosexualizing” of history and the special association with tyrants that is reserved for adherents of religious, conservative philosophy. Though I do pull a fair number of quotes from the text, there is infinitely more in this book that I do not cover because, well, I’d love for you all to get your own copies…and some for your best friend’s upcoming birthday, and your parents’ anniversary, and your spouse’s Valentine’s surprise. :0)
Yours in jamming-and-converting defiance,
~Pearl
Related Links:
Aggressive and Intolerant Gay Campaign Over Prop 8 Loss
Mormon is the New Black – A Thanksgiving Story
Martyr McGehee
eHarmony Crumples Under Discrimination Lawsuits
The “Right” to Win
6 Comments:
Pear said,
"What does this say about our ignorant society unwilling to look evil square in the face and call it what it is, with a refusal to embrace it as anything else?"
It is a question I wonder about often. I think about my children and get scared. I have no answers only that we must take a stand for what is right in our homes. Set the example and then as hard as it may be choose to be vocal in our stand for what is right.
Pearl said: "We are no strangers to jamming today."
Desensitization, jamming, and conversion (DJC) are all on display at the heart of the pro-SSM argumentation.
The first principle of which is that to disagree is itself an act of bigotry. Occassionally, an SSMer will hedge and say that while most people are bigots because of the disagreement, some few are principled. This is meant to seperate the few from the many. Yet when the reverse is pointed out, with a far more factual and principled basis, the SSmer switches to guilt-by-association or guilty-by-encouraging-a-hateful-atmosphere and the like. The axiomatic belief that to disagree with the merger of SSM (i.e. nonmarriage) with marriage is advanced with a quasi-religious fervor. It is a leap of faith. It is DJC in relentless action.
I consider SSMers to be a crowd of fanatics banging on their drums and too busy talking in their coded language to notice that the actual disagreement is about marriage, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is a different subject altogether. But the bang-drummers manage to provoke much disucssion of homosexuality and to divert attention from marriage such that their SSM argumentation -- in crude and sophisticated forms -- amounts to a purposeful elision of the actual disagreement at stake.
For some very recent examples, read the comment section here:
The short history of being gay
http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/13/the-short-history-of-being-gay/#comments
And here:
Salt Lake City Solution
http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/21/salt-lake-city-solution/
And we've got plenty of examples in the comment sections at The Opine Editorials.
Here's a very recent one in which a person representing the T in GLBT introduces a model of dialog referred to, by him, as NVA.
See the comment sections here:
Loyalty Oaths for Attorneys
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/12/loyalty-oaths-for-attorneys.html
And here:
Of Man and Woman, Masculinity and Femininity
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/01/of-man-and-woman-masculinity-and.html
Also, for examples of how the SSMers talk amongst each other about these types of discussions, follow the links that are provided in their comments. You'll read how DJC works even on themselves.
I've been very determined to stick to the actual disagreement on marriage but at times will seek clarification, in their own words, on these other side-topics that are central to the pro-SSM attitude. I say attitude because it is more attitude than reasoning or argument.
That is not to say that there is high-level thinking about these strategies. It is to say that these strategies have been internalized and we, as defenders of marriage, need to raise them to the surface for the sake of the clarifying power of daylight.
@BusyWithConviction
"I think about my children and get scared."
I completely understand this and feel the same way. And I, too, have turned my fears into activism and myth-busting. What else can we do? It's an uphill battle we fight with the media throwing its full and massive weight behind the DJC homosexual campaign. My goal is to educate first the permissive parent products of the 1960's, and then the media-owned youth - they are the future voters.
Chairm,
A million thanks for all the links to revealing DJC-type conversations. It is chilling just how owned we are by marketing and public relations campaigns.
"These strategies have been internalized and we, as defenders of marriage, need to raise them to the surface for the sake of the clarifying power of daylight."
Exactly! If more people would face the music, we could then rearrange the discordant notes to create beautiful harmony.
What a great analysis of how civil rights got hijacked by the homosexual community, which turned around to abuse the tools. I don't want the "debate" over the homosexual agenda to get into a shouting match, but folks who oppose it need to speak up and let others know that there are still people in this country who don't buy into the lies about homosexuality.
I like what you siad here Chairm
The first principle of which is that to disagree is itself an act of bigotry.
Thanks for the article Pearl, I look forward to hearing more about the book.
Large titles seem to work well with google searches.
Post a Comment