Friday, February 22, 2008

Is the New York Times the Voice of the Gay Mafia?

By Fred Martinez

Why does the New York Times infer John McCain had an affair with a woman because of appearances, but when Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of raping her ignored it?

The reason is the Clintons and Obama are the most Gay agenda presidential candidates in United States history.

McCain is too pro-family, as compared to the Democrat candidates, for the Gay Mafia and it's voice the New York Times.

Bernard Goldberg in his book "Bias" said, "The problem is that so many TV journalists simply don’t know how to think about certain issues until the New York Times and the Washington Post tell them what to think. Those big, important newspapers set the agenda that network news people follow."

In the case of the newspaper of record, the gay movement appears to hold in bondage the New York Times in more ways than one. NewsMax ran an article about Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine's inquiry into the Times' bias. (See: New York Times on Defensive.) Irvine said Richard Berke, a national political correspondent for the Times, spoke at a gathering of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

Irvine says that Berke assured the homosexual group that the Times would remain very receptive to the gay agenda because "three-fourths of those who regularly attend the daily meetings that determine what will be on the front page of the Times the next morning are 'not-so-closeted' homosexuals."

Goldberg unwittingly in analogy showed a similar situation at CBS when he said, "If CBS News were a prison instead of a journalistic enterprise, three-quarters of the producers and 100 percent of the vice presidents would be Dan's [Rather's] bitches."

Norman Mailer explains why the totalitarian relationship Rather had with his CBS News producers and vice presidents, as well as his denial of natural objective truths, can lead to a Nietzschean will-to-power situation.

In his book "Prisoner of Sex," Mailer showed why this moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to the homosexual prison totalitarian will to power:

"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."

This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.

Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter –they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.

Leftists replace the traditional family with sexual power struggles that lead to the death mills of the abortion industry and the graveyards of AIDS and the abandonment of children and women at the altar of free sex.

Sex is not free. It was once a responsibility that a mature man entered into for life, for the security of his beloved children and wife.

Gay Mafia Power Tactics

Likewise, liberals replace the Constitution with sex and ethnic power struggles that lead to the breaking of the rule of law. If a president can sexually abuse women and possibly even rape them, then obstruct justice and lie under oath, are we under the rule of law? If our society will not tolerate truth, then men and women are not secure in their "inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society," as Bloom said.

If we reject the rule of law and natural rights, our society will progress toward the Mafia power tactics of prison homosexuals. The leftists in the Church and the media rejecting objective truth no longer want to be identified as men of objective faith and reason, but rather as Nietzschean post-modernists to be identified with the "culture" of the gay and Clintonian playboy slogans of the media elite.

The media elite uses management tactics on anyone who wants to be identified as a man of objective morals, faith and reason. They redefine the meaning of words like morals, faith and reason through association and repetition, then isolate those who don't accept the new definitions, after which they ostracize the good name of any person or group that doesn't accept the new "culture" and isn't a "team player."

The very respected scholar Edgar H. Schein of MIT Sloan School of Management explains the process in "Organizational Learning as Cognitive Re-definition: Coercive Persuasion Revisited":

"It may seem absurd to the reader to draw an analogy between the coercive persuasion in political prisons and a new leader announcing that he or she is going 'to change the culture.'

"However, if the leader really means it, if the change will really affect fundamental assumptions and values, one can anticipate levels of anxiety and resistance quite comparable to those one would see in prisons. The coercive element is not as strong. More people will simply leave before they change their cognitive structures, but if they have a financial stake or a career investment in the organization, they face the same pressure to 'convert' that the prisoner did. ... Consider, for example, what it means to impose a 'culture of teamwork' based on 'openness and mutual trust' in an individualistic society."

By using this process, the leftists with the media's marketing ability learned they could create massive peer pressure – some would call it a "mob mentality," which changes the worldview of people with weak morals, weak faith or the Judas mentality. These types of people see themselves as the "elite" because they accept the "culture of teamwork" and have "openness" to the new definitions.

These persons wishing to be part of the "culture" or "team" are open to cognitive re-definition. Schein explains how the process works:

"'Cognitive redefinition' involved two different processes. First, concepts like crime and espionage had to be semantically redefined. Crime is an abstraction that can mean different things in different conceptual systems when one makes it concrete. Second, standards of judgment had to be altered. Even within the western concept of crime, what was previously regarded as trivial was now seen to be serious. The anchors by which judgments are made are shifted and the point of neutrality is moved. Behavior that was previously judged to be neutral or of no consequence became criminal, once the anchor of what was a minimum crime was shifted. These two processes, semantic re-definition and changing one's anchors for what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, are the essence of cognitive re-definition."


Post a Comment

<< Home