One aspect of the global push for homosexual normalization in which the truth is largely unknown is that the campaign to champion “gay-rights” is NOT a grass-roots movement. It is often difficult to bring Christians to the realization that the media in America, and across the world, is controlled by a cabal of global elites who are servants of Satan.
Growing up in America in the 1960s and ‘70s, I heard a great deal of condemnation of the propagandistic, state-controlled media in communist nations, particularly the Soviet Union. I was made to understand that the press in communist nations was rigidly controlled, that it did not permit dissenting opinions, and that news was reported in such a way that it always served the aims of those in positions of power.
I remember thinking as a youth that surely everyone in those nations must realize that the media is state-controlled, and that they must disdain what is reported as biased and lacking truth. I could not imagine citizens of communist nations taking the reports in the press seriously. I imagined that men and women had to be truly blind, or exceptionally naive, to give credence to what was reported in the state controlled media.
The great subtlety of Satan was such that failed to consider that the media in America was equally biased, and existed to serve the ends of those in positions of power. The mantra that America is a free nation with a free press was so pervasive as I was growing up, that I accepted this as truth. It never occurred to me that America was just as thoroughly propagandized as Russia, or some other despotic communist regime.
In the recent series titled Dragon Flood
, I shared the following information.
A moneyed elite found it possible to control the climate in which attitudes are formed, and actions are birthed. By control of the media and the governments of nations, they are well positioned to not only set the agenda for public discussion, but to define the limits of that discussion. They dictate the conversation and choose the subjects of public debate.
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media” — controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market.
In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S..
(Click on Image to View Larger)
The actual state of the media control is worse than the images above reveal. All of these major media corporations have interlocking relationships as men and women who serve on the board of the companies in one group also serve on the boards of corporations from other groups. The entire world has fallen under the sway of a global corporatocracy.
The phrase “Interlocking Directorate” describes the practice of global corporations to place directors from one company on the board of another company to increase power, coordination, and influence of the businesses joined in this way. This leads to a high level of coordination between companies, which explains why there are thousands of individual media companies that all run the same stories. These corporate directors are not the true powers behind the scene. They are the appointed ambassadors of a smaller group of global elite. These new world order ambassadors/corporate directors carefully guide all of the amassed media entities under their sway, causing the public to place their focus upon whatever subject is determined by the powers that be.
The appearance of conflict between media companies like Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN are carefully controlled ruses. The global elite carefully select both sides of an argument so that any free thought that is in opposition to their goals will be excluded. It is much like the charade carried on by the Democratic and Republican parties during elections. In the most recent presidential contest, the only candidate that presented a view contrary to the global elite was Ron Paul. The media made a point to marginalize Ron Paul, downplaying his support, characterizing him as “unelectable,” and removing all mention of him from articles that made mention of those who stood as frontrunners.
The candidates who did receive favorable attention were all handpicked servants of the global elite. The following video reveals the manner in which the media controls thoughts by framing a debate, excluding those people who are free thinkers, and eliminating all debate that threatens the global aims of the ruling powers.
Those with any integrity can clearly see that the policies of the U.S. government did not change at all when the Republican President George W. Bush was replaced by the Democratic President Barack Hussein Obama. Despite many campaign promises that things would be different, America has seen more of the same. The media portrayal of substantive differences between the chosen candidates of the two major parties is a scam to deceive the gullible. Both parties are controlled by the financial powers of a global elite.
In his book titled Propaganda, published in 1928, Edward Bernays wrote:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which democratic society is organized…
Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons – a trifling fraction… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind…
The control of the vehicles of thought has become increasingly aggregated in the hands of a few. As the infographic previously displayed in this article states “6 media giants now control 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to.” This number has since declined to 5 media giants, and each of the five have interlocking relationships. The following graphic is taken from a Wikipedia article.
(Click on image to view larger)
The above graphic shows men and women who serve on multiple corporate boards. Yet, the connections are far more extensive when one adds membership in multi-national guidance groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations. It is at the meetings of these elite organizations that the policies to be promoted by the individual members are disseminated.
These graphics show just a portion of the amassed interlocks between the men and women who run the world’s global corporations. The image above reveals that Carla Anderson Hills, who sits on the board of Time Warner Inc., is a member of the CFR. Similarly, George J. Mitchell, who sits on the board of Walt Disney Corp., is a CFR member. In actuality, the other three major media conglomerates have members who are linked to the CFR and to other interlocking corporations.
The reason I make a point to establish this information in the minds of the readers of this blog is that the campaign to promote homosexuality as a normal and wholesome lifestyle, while demonizing those who oppose it, has been carried out in the media. The media is carefully controlled, and serves the ends of a insignificant fraction of humanity who hold the reins of power. There has been no real debate in the media about the merits of the homosexual lifestyle. Only one side has been presented in a favorable light, and that is the pro-homosexual view. Although those opposed to homosexuality have represented the traditional, majority view, all arguments in support of their view have been blacklisted.
In the book The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, David Kupelian shares the following:
[Gay Rights] grew out of the “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960s. To be precise, the June 11, 1969, “Stonewall Riot” – when a group of homosexuals at New York City’s Stonewall Inn resisted police commands to disperse – is widely regarded as the birth of the “gay liberation” movement.
This emerging political force made considerable strides during the ‘70s, most notably in persuading – many say intimidating – the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 into removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. But “gay rights” was young, inexperienced, underfunded, and understaffed as political movements go, and the issue received little support from politicians or the nation in general….
Then came AIDS.
Surely, many activists thought, this would be their movement’s death knell. For while they were trying to convince the mainstream that homosexuals represented a normal, healthy, alternative lifestyle, along comes a modern plague – horrible, incurable, fatal, and spread primarily by promiscuous homosexual men.
AIDS – originally named GRID (gay related immunodeficiency disease) until activist homosexuals pressured the medical establishment to switch to the generic acronym AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) – was the ultimate public relations nightmare. It gave society a brand-new reason to fear and shun homosexuals – namely, concern over becoming infected with a nightmarish new disease.
And AIDS did something else. In order for the medical establishment and news media to communicate to the public how the disease was being transmitted, it became necessary to focus publicly on the one thing homosexuals most wanted to downplay – the sometimes-bizarre sexual acts in which they engage and their often astronomically high number of sexual partners. (A widely cited 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than five hundred sex partners during their lifetime…)
As a public relations matter, AIDS was daunting. This modern plague, if not handled brilliantly in the court of public opinion, could result in homosexuals being widely shunned…
The movement definitely needed help. The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like ACT-UP (Aids Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.
(The author proceeds to describe the December 10, 1989 incident where a group of homosexual activists stormed into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City while Cardinal John O’Connor was leading mass. Some demonstrators wearing gold robes in imitation of the Catholic clergy’s vestments, held up a large portrait depicting Jesus in a pornographic, frontal nude shot. Demonstrators stood on the pews, tossed condoms into the air, and screamed obscenities at Cardinal O’Connor and the parishioners gathered for mass. One of the activists grabbed a consecrated wafer, viewed as holy to Roman Catholics, and tossed it to the ground.)
Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal lifestyle…
In February 1988 some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement’s future. Shortly, thereafter, activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen put into book form the comprehensive public relations plan they had been advocating with their gay-rights peers for several years.
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the “Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth” and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Together they wrote “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s.”
“As cynical as it may seem,” they explained at the outset, “AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care…”
The bottom line of Kirk and Madsen’s master plan? “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”
Arguing that, skillfully handled, the AIDS epidemic could conquer American resistance to homosexuality and form the basis of a comprehensive, long-term marketing campaign to sell “gay-rights” to straight America, “After the Ball” became the public relations “Bible” of the movement.
Kirk and Madsen’s “war goal,” explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American Society…”
Okay, you might be wondering, even granting the movement’s cutting-edge marketing savvy, how do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don’t. Just don’t talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.
“When you’re very different, and people hate you for it,” they explain, “this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.”
In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, (pedophiles), and other “peculiar” members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.
Rondeau explains Kirk and Madsen’s techniques of “desensitization,” “jamming,” and “conversion” this way:
Desensitization is described as inundating the public 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.” But the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context, but, rather, quite a different approach: “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” They add, “Seek desensitization and nothing more… If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won…”
Jamming, explains Rondeau “is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion…”
[P]erhaps the highest-profile example of jamming occurred after the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman Matthew Shepard. Lured from a bar, robbed, and savagely beaten by two men, Shepard died five days later of head injuries. In the frenzied, saturation media coverage that followed, the press and homosexual activists singled out conservative Christians as having created a “climate of anti-gay hate” in which such a brutal act could happen.
NBC’s Today show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at the time that offered to help homosexuals change their orientation. Reporter David Gregory narrated: “The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growing belief that homosexuality may be genetic… Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Matthew Shepard? Gay rights activists say the ads convey a message that gay people are defective.”
And in a now-infamous interview, Today’s Katie Couric asked Wyoming governor Jim Gerringer: “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?…”
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 likely wasn’t a factor in Shepard’s murder, but rather that Shepard had been targeted for his money.
So much for desensitization and jamming. But what about “conversion”? Here Kirk and Madsen announce defiantly:
We mean conversion of the American’s emotions, mind, and will, though a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media…
Transforming another person’s hatred into love (“warm regard”) is the object of classic brainwashing. As Kirk and Madsen explain:
In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label “gay,” either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype…
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…
“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.”
[Source: The Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian]
Kupelian goes on to describe the media and press’ complicity with the homosexual agenda. In 2000, at a San Francisco meeting of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), a gala conference was held. Sponsoring this media convention were: Hearst Newspapers; Knight-Ridder, Inc.; CBS News; Gannett Foundation; CNN; Bloomberg News; NBC News; the Dallas Morning News; Fox News Channel; the Los Angeles Times; the New York Daily News; the San Francisco Chronicle; Time, Inc.; the Wall Street Journal; the Washington Post; and the San Jose Mercury News.
The main topic of discussion at this conference of media professionals was whether the mainstream news have a responsibility, in the pursuit of balance and fair reporting, to include any viewpoints that contradict those of homosexuals. The answer was a resounding “No!” David Kupelian writes:
MSNBC producer David Escobar framed the issue this way, “This whole issue of ‘balance’ that we as journalists are supposed to achieve… When we cover the black community, I’ve never seen a newsroom where you’re covering one side and then you have to go run out and get the Klan’s point of view: ‘Well, I’ve got to go do my Klan interview.” How do you be fair?”
NLGJA member Jeffrey Kofman, at the time a CBS correspondent who later migrated to NBC, restated the question: “The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, the homophobes and fag-haters quoted in the stories when, of course, we don’t do that with Jews, blacks, etcetera?”
Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director of WNBC in New York, added: “I agree with him. I don’t see why we would seek out… the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view…”
Up on that glitzy convention stage were representatives of top broadcast news networks debating whether or not professional journalists should give voice to the Christian or traditional viewpoint on homosexuality. Or, they suggested, wouldn’t it be better just to censor such “hateful” and “bigoted” viewpoints as being the moral equivalent of a “pro-racism” or “pro-bigotry” viewpoint, and thus beyond the margins of civilized debate?
You may be surprised to learn that even local news broadcasters utilize canned scripts sent to them by their parent organizations. Consider the following videos:
It is significant that Conan O’Brien, like John Stewart, is presenting this information in a comedic format. These men, after all, are paid employees of the same networks they are mocking. The plan is to shape people’s responses. By making media bias and its centralized control into a joke, people are conditioned to not take these subjects too seriously. Controlling thoughts, and altering the morals of a nation through media propagandizing, are not laughing matters.
As a Christian who is living in a society that is being purposefully, maliciously, and deceitfully corrupted by invisible men who are enemies of Christ, you need to recognize that you, along with the rest of society, are being intentionally manipulated. The story of Matthew Shepard, like that of Trayvon Martin, was an opportunistic exploitation of Americans. The media seized upon Matthew Shepard’s death as an opportunity to portray Christian belief as bigoted, hateful, and leading to violence when there was no evidence that homosexuality, much less Biblical views on the subject, had anything to do with the attack on Matthew Shepard.
Every day we are being subjected to news stories that depict the homosexual as a victim to be pitied. They are portrayed as victims of a cruel disease called AIDS, of bullying, or discrimination. The news NEVER portrays homosexuals in an unfavorable light. Have you noted that with all of the news about Roman Catholic priests sexually molesting young boys, it is NEVER mentioned that the priests are engaging in homosexual behavior. You will NOT find the word “gay” mentioned in these news stories. Instead, the priest is always described as a sexual predator, or a child abuser. The media masters do not want Americans to associate homosexuality with the exploitation of children, or abuse of innocent victims.
The hidden hand that guides the media has an agenda planned. As Kirk and Madsen stated, it does not matter whether what is reported consists of lies, or is an intentional distortion of actual events. The end justifies the means.