Massive homosexualist propaganda on Fox

David J. writes:

Yesterday you referred to an older post entitled “How liberalism with pleasing words wins us over, to our damnation,” which made me recall a recent, vivid example of this phenomenon. Fox airs an entertaining, very well written musical comedy called “Glee” which revolves around a ragtag group of students in a high school glee club. The show initially geared towards a younger audience and the story lines reflected this aim.

During the first season, an effeminate club member named Kurt grudgingly revealed his homosexuality to the school. I found this particular development basically unobjectionable as the existence of a homosexual in a glee club, drama team, or chorus is probably closer to reality that many would admit. However, as the show progressed, more characters proverbially came out of the closet. For instance, two beautiful cheerleaders, also glee club members, confessed their romantic affection for each other and became an official couple (there was even a provocative bed scene involving the two). To escape harassment by a school bully, Kurt enrolled in an all-male private school, where he joined its glee club and became the handsome lead singer’s boyfriend. Later, it was disclosed that the said school bully was gay and madly in love with Kurt. The writers apparently still thought that too few gays were represented, so more stories were created. For examples, Rachel, the glee club’s most talented and ambitious singer, has two adoptive fathers and a cross-dressing kid sings and dances for a rival high school’s club.

Thus, what initially began as a seemingly harmless, witty show about high school teenagers has evolved into an outright, preachy propaganda arm for the homosexual movement.

LA replies:

It’s a standard technique, especially with movies. A new movie comes out and is praised and promoted as a marvelous movie that must be seen. The ads and the reviewers conceal the movie’s real contents. Unsuspecting viewers then go to the movie and find themselves in the midst of all-out homosexual agit prop.

Bruce C. writes:

The ratings for “Glee” have significantly declined over the past year.

LA replies:

I’m not sure what the significance of that would be. Things go up and down. TV series go up and down, and eventually all TV series come to an end. Obama’s approval ratings go up and down, always oscillating between 50 and 43 percent. Yet every time they go down for the nth time, the foaming at the mouth conservatives cry out that Obama is “in free fall.” Is the homosexualist movement perhaps also “in free fall”? The illegitimacy rate oscillates slightly, as it continues to increase. Yet some years ago the mainstream conservatives pointed to a slight downtick in illegitimacy to suggest that the problem was getting better. It was not. But the conservatives essentially washed their hands of the issue after they gave their support in 2000 to George W. Bush who made unmarried mothers an object of approval and admiration with his slogan that “Single moms have the toughest job in America.” After 2000, the conservatives had essentially nothing to say about the extremely high and increasing illegitimacy rate, which prior to that point they had seen, correctly, as an existential threat to our form of society. Having given up on the issue, they declared with straight faces that a two percent decline in illegitimacy showed that the corner had been turned and that marriage was coming back.

A reader writes:

The strategy that has brought us to this point was set out for all to see in the book After The Ball, How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s, Kirk & Madsen, published in 1989. It’s an instruction manual—much like Rules for Radicals.

The writers were no amateurs—they understood well the gullibility of the American public. As smart as they were, even they must have been surprised at how easy it has been to achieve their stated goal. Many who today are sympathetic to the movement would likely be embarrassed to think about how they have been manipulated by the techniques outlined in the book.

A sampling:

Desensitization: “to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the leas offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t turn off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

Jamming: “use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one’s feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).”

Conversion: “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 … It makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect.”

Principle 5. Portray Gays As Victims, Not As Aggressive Challengers

Principle 7. Make Gays Look Good

Principle 8. Make Victimizers Look Bad

Tactics for Eating The Media Alive: A Sound Bite Here, A Sound Bite There … Gay News Makes Loud Noise! Read All About It!

There’s even a section in one chapter entitled: “Step 3: When all Else Fails, Homosexuality for President” in which we read, “Gays will then have to consider a bold stratagem to seize media attention forcibly, without full media cooperation.” In this section the authors propose running symbolic gay candidates for every high political office. “We’d start by demanding the support of our ‘friends’ in the ‘rainbow coalition’ and in the Democratic Party.”

A Portfolio of Pro-Gay Advertising features several examples with commentary on the pros and cons. They know their stuff.

Remember, this book came out over 20 years ago—and realize how it has all unfolded as planned.

The book introduces the authors as follows:

Marshall Kirk is a researcher in neuropsychiatry, a logician, and a poet. Since graduation from Harvard University in 1980, Kirk has worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. He now writes full time. Kirk lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hunter Madsen received his doctorate in Politics from Harvard in 1985. An expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing, Madsen has designed commercial advertising on Madison Avenue and served as a consultant to gay media campaigns across the country. He appears frequently on national media as an advocate for gay rights. Madsen lives in San Francisco.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 22, 2012 10:32 AM | Send