THE NEXT FAZE OF DECEPTION, MANIPULATION AND CONTROL
I just read for the first time the 2010 Family Research Institute’s (FRI) article “Martha Nussbaum Attacks Cameron” that discusses her attack on Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute, and I must say that I am ashamed that I am so far behind on such important information.
It seem that the homosexual activists feel that they have pretty much sealed the deal with the general public on the general acceptance of homosexuality. Now it seems they are attempting to do away with our basic instincts for recognizing depravity and our tendency to use that knowledge in our law making process.
To assist in accomplishing this goal, Martha Nussbaum has apparently decided to take a stab at reprogramming our mental aversion to some of the most disgusting aspects of homosexual practices. This would never have been attempted in the 1980 when they were plotting and launching their “white wash homosexuality” strategy.
Perhaps I am fortunate not to have been exposed to the work of Martha Nussbaum and her apparent “mystifying brilliance” and am thus, I guess, able to see clearly just how irrational and foolish she is.
It is quite possible that her agenda is money-motivated or worst yet, demon driven. Which ever it is, and it is very possible that it is both; Nussbaum demands the careful attention of Christian activist and ministries who take their role as servants of Jesus Christ seriously.
I make this point because of the manner in which apparently far too many people view her.
The FRI article opens with a reference to another article published in the gay San Francisco Chronicle that opined:
“Pity the enemies of gay equality who find themselves at intellectual odds with America’s most prominent, and most prolific, philosopher of public life, Martha C. Nussbaum.”
That alone got my attention, not simply that she was praised in that manner, since that often over state their importance, but mainly because of who was making the claim. San Francisco is considered to be a gay city and the Chronicle one of their gay papers, so it is clear to me that Nussbaum is on their push list to make her bigger than life because she is another of their champions.
If how that paper described her has already become an accepted view by the general public, (and knowing how effective homosexual activists can be, I suspect it is or will be), then she has the ears and minds of people that she will no doubt influence for the worst if an intelligent and effective counter campaign has not and is not being implemented by conservative Christians.
Homosexual activists are very good at getting the word out and they are well aware of just how easy it is for them to use the media to sway the thinking of the masses. And so, homosexuals will assist her efforts in any way that they can, not the least of which is building her up as an ultimate authority on “the philosophy of public life”. If you think I exaggerate, just read this quote from the article:
“Nussbaum has Paul Cameron’s arguments against gay rights in her sights, and she is considered nothing less than the second coming to America’s intellectuals. Even Richard Redding says she proves that there is no rational reason to oppose homosexuality-opposition to gay rights is merely ‘disgust.”
So not only are they pushing her as the essence of intellectualism at least in the area of homosexual rights, and no doubt in areas of philosophy in general, but they are also keeping track of other “intellectuals” who publicly agree with her.
The fact that Nussbaum is a known liberal with little or no respect for Biblical truth or reliable statistics unless she can twist them to her benefit, is not an issue for people who simply want to be acknowledged as “progressive” and “intelligent” or who would sell their mother or close loved one if it will get them a promotion in their company or some other status boosts with perks.
But the average person for the most part, who believes what she says, is in a real since a victim of psychological manipulation. And that manipulation has by now no doubt been compounded through controlled or intimidated media.
In fact, what disturbed me most about what the FRI article revealed concerning Nussbaum’s material defending homosexual rights, was the blatant psychological manipulation that she engaged in to make her defense. The FRI article seems to have overlooked that aspect of what she was doing.
Don’t misunderstand me, the article was well written and very informative, I am just concerned that knowing the history of their manipulation of the masses, the author should have included that aspect if for no other reason than to help us remember to stay alert to such manipulation.[1]
We must remember that if she controls the message she controls how it is delivered and can therefore avoid any aspect that would be counter productive to what she is trying to accomplish, no matter how sound or accurate it is. This point the FRI piece does clearly make.
And considering the repulsive subject matter she chose to focus on, it should be expected that she would have to put quite a spin on it to get straight people to exclude it from their decision forming process when considering homosexual sex practices and “homosexual rights.”
Her entire approach reeks of “Kinseyism”. It is a fabrication of an “intelligent” psychological and philosophical exegesis of the straight human’s reaction to the unnatural, harmful and indeed, repulsive sexual practices of homosexuals.
The FRI article states:
“Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law (2010) and Hiding from Humanity (2004) argues it is wrong to permit disgust to influence public policy regarding homosexuals. Most, she argues, have “a deep aversion akin to that inspired by bodily waste, slimy insects, and spoiled food-and then cite that very reaction to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same-sex marriage.” She believes the politics of disgust contradict equality of all under the law. “It says that the mere fact that you happen to make me want to vomit is reason enough for me to treat you as a social pariah, denying you some of your most basic entitlements as a citizen.”
Assuming that this is an accurate take on her argument, (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), in addition to shifting the focus away from the psychological, pathological, medical and spiritual harms involved with homosexual sex practices, Nussbaum attempts to convince us that our basic instinct to recognize depravity and our common wisdom in incorporating that basic instinct into our lawmaking is unrighteous and unjust, and in some way unethical. I would be interested in just what standard of ethics she is referring to.
Also, from the references addressed by the FRI article, I see nowhere that Nussbaum includes herself when addressing the “disgust” factor so I assume, given her forceful arguments, that she does not include herself as one who finds such homosexual activity to be disgusting. If that is true, perhaps she considers herself to be a “bright” who is enlightened beyond such trivialities and therefore would be honored if homosexuals would invite her to their nights of rimming, gold showers and fisting.
To me this is a con job, and attempt to make normal people think that their normal inclinations are unethical and unfair. It is in fact a demonstration of just how little such people think of those of us they feel are beneath them intellectually. To them, we are intellectually lost souls easily manipulated into thinking whatever they want us to think. All they need do is say the word and we bow to their great wisdom that make right wrong and wrong so right. No matter how ridiculous their argument, they think so little of us that they have the nerve to expect us to fall for it hook, line and sinker.
But it gets worst, she even goes so far as to try to explain our reactions and diagnose the reason for our disgust, (FRI):
“Although some disgust-reactions may have an evolutionary basis and thus may be broadly shared across societies, and although the more mediated types of disgust may be broadly shared within a society, that does not mean that disgust provides a disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be used for purposes of public persuasion… Disgust concerns thoughts of contamination as opposed to real harm; it is usually grounded on ‘magical thinking’ rather than on real danger; and its root cause is our ambivalence to our mortality and animalistic qualities, namely to what we are (mortal animals). (2004, 27-28)”
Note the evolution connection, because she thinks we are animals, it is rooted in our animalistic qualities. Hardly something to base laws on. And again, to her there is no real harm only “magical thinking”. Yet again, she ignores our medical, pathological, psychological and spiritual arguments rooted in well-established statistics. But it gets worst still. (FRI):
"[T]he central locus of disgust in today’s United States [is] male loathing of the male homosexual. Female homosexuals may be objects of fear, or moral indignation, or generalized anxiety, but they are less often objects of disgust. Similarly, heterosexual females may feel negative emotions toward the male homosexual — fear, moral indignation, anxiety — but again, they rarely feel emotions of disgust. What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas imaginable — to males, for whom the idea of non-penetrability is a sacred boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. The presence of a homosexual male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might oneself lose one’s clean safeness, one might become the receptacle for those animal products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one’s own imagined penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as a predator who might make everyone else disgusting. The very look of such a male is itself contaminating — as we see in the extraordinary debates about showers in the military. The gaze of a homosexual male is seen as contaminating because it says ‘You can be penetrated.’ And this means that you can be made of feces and semen and blood, not clean plastic flesh. (And this means you will soon be dead.) (2004, pp. 30-31)"
This is not only unintelligent; it is quite deceptive and as old as the history in the book of Genesis. In fact, this tactic is taken right out of Genesis chapter three. Just as the serpent caused Eve to rethink her correct understanding and convictions about God’s command and intentions, resulting in her changed perspective that made disobeying God appealing, Nussbaum attempts to convince us that our well placed disgust is misapplied as a result of our inner fear of being tainted and or homosexually violated. How this foolishness is allowed to pass for intellectualism is amazing to me.
My apology in advance for the following paragraph’s graphic description of a disgusting subject but it is necessary to make my point. Remember, Nussbaum opened the door to this foolishness.
We are disgusted by feces because of it’s smell and look and because we know what it is and it’s danger. We make laws based on that knowledge and experience which includes our inclination towards it’s disgust. Thus defecating in public is a crime, not because we have an imaginary fear of being forced to eat feces or any other such foolishness. But even if some did conger up images of being forced to eat feces when they laid eyes on it, (which is entirely possible), that alone has never resulted in laws being passed. As pointed out in the FRI article, Nussbaum ignores the other powerful reasons that we reject homosexuality.
I think she deceptively and intentionally does so in order to lay the ground work for desensitizing us to one of the most detestable aspects of homosexual pracitces.
Since they have successfully used the media, the press, TV/cable, the judiciary and education to gain acceptance of homosexuality as normal - natural behavior by following the strategy outlined in such homosexual documents as “After The Ball”[2], they apparently now feel comfortable enough to attempt to remove the “ick” factor, the more baser aspects of their pracitce that has indeed been a key factor in their rejection, and therein lies the motive for Nussbaum’s strange claims.
Nussbaum’s boldness in making such twisted declarations are obviously the results of her faith in the power of the homosexual activist community to run interference for her and shield her from any conservative-religious, professional-psychological, philosophical or moral academic rebuttal and out cry.
Relying on the homosexual activist’s past success in persuading the public to accept false conclusions by using openly strong-handed tactics, behind the seen cash advanced deal making, intimidation, manipulation and infiltration of media, academic and psychological organizations etc., Nussbaum has good reason to anticipate her successful duping of the American public.
Far too many Americas are ignorant of the scam that homosexual and pedophile Alfred Kinsey and his crew ran on us many years ago that resulted in the “sexual revolution” largely responsible for our current morally deprived state. A state that is evidenced by the tasteless, immoral and often sacrilegious dialogue that far too often passes for entertainment on prime time TV, Cable and in movies. We are apparently still ripe for another massive deception campaign that will aid in driving us even further down into the pit of moral depravity.
I am indebted to the Family Research Institute for their hard work and determination to provide invaluable information important to American families and I pray that people of faith everywhere will support such endeavors by them and other like-minded organizations.
God warned us in his word that such false teachers would come and would deceive many.
2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
[1] To be fair, I should say that F.R.I. may have addressed this aspect of Martha Nussbaum’s material and the homosexual agenda in other documents available on their web site.
[2] Harvard grads Marshall Kirk (psychologist) and Hunter Madsen (advertising) 1989
It seem that the homosexual activists feel that they have pretty much sealed the deal with the general public on the general acceptance of homosexuality. Now it seems they are attempting to do away with our basic instincts for recognizing depravity and our tendency to use that knowledge in our law making process.
To assist in accomplishing this goal, Martha Nussbaum has apparently decided to take a stab at reprogramming our mental aversion to some of the most disgusting aspects of homosexual practices. This would never have been attempted in the 1980 when they were plotting and launching their “white wash homosexuality” strategy.
Perhaps I am fortunate not to have been exposed to the work of Martha Nussbaum and her apparent “mystifying brilliance” and am thus, I guess, able to see clearly just how irrational and foolish she is.
It is quite possible that her agenda is money-motivated or worst yet, demon driven. Which ever it is, and it is very possible that it is both; Nussbaum demands the careful attention of Christian activist and ministries who take their role as servants of Jesus Christ seriously.
I make this point because of the manner in which apparently far too many people view her.
The FRI article opens with a reference to another article published in the gay San Francisco Chronicle that opined:
“Pity the enemies of gay equality who find themselves at intellectual odds with America’s most prominent, and most prolific, philosopher of public life, Martha C. Nussbaum.”
That alone got my attention, not simply that she was praised in that manner, since that often over state their importance, but mainly because of who was making the claim. San Francisco is considered to be a gay city and the Chronicle one of their gay papers, so it is clear to me that Nussbaum is on their push list to make her bigger than life because she is another of their champions.
If how that paper described her has already become an accepted view by the general public, (and knowing how effective homosexual activists can be, I suspect it is or will be), then she has the ears and minds of people that she will no doubt influence for the worst if an intelligent and effective counter campaign has not and is not being implemented by conservative Christians.
Homosexual activists are very good at getting the word out and they are well aware of just how easy it is for them to use the media to sway the thinking of the masses. And so, homosexuals will assist her efforts in any way that they can, not the least of which is building her up as an ultimate authority on “the philosophy of public life”. If you think I exaggerate, just read this quote from the article:
“Nussbaum has Paul Cameron’s arguments against gay rights in her sights, and she is considered nothing less than the second coming to America’s intellectuals. Even Richard Redding says she proves that there is no rational reason to oppose homosexuality-opposition to gay rights is merely ‘disgust.”
So not only are they pushing her as the essence of intellectualism at least in the area of homosexual rights, and no doubt in areas of philosophy in general, but they are also keeping track of other “intellectuals” who publicly agree with her.
The fact that Nussbaum is a known liberal with little or no respect for Biblical truth or reliable statistics unless she can twist them to her benefit, is not an issue for people who simply want to be acknowledged as “progressive” and “intelligent” or who would sell their mother or close loved one if it will get them a promotion in their company or some other status boosts with perks.
But the average person for the most part, who believes what she says, is in a real since a victim of psychological manipulation. And that manipulation has by now no doubt been compounded through controlled or intimidated media.
In fact, what disturbed me most about what the FRI article revealed concerning Nussbaum’s material defending homosexual rights, was the blatant psychological manipulation that she engaged in to make her defense. The FRI article seems to have overlooked that aspect of what she was doing.
Don’t misunderstand me, the article was well written and very informative, I am just concerned that knowing the history of their manipulation of the masses, the author should have included that aspect if for no other reason than to help us remember to stay alert to such manipulation.[1]
We must remember that if she controls the message she controls how it is delivered and can therefore avoid any aspect that would be counter productive to what she is trying to accomplish, no matter how sound or accurate it is. This point the FRI piece does clearly make.
And considering the repulsive subject matter she chose to focus on, it should be expected that she would have to put quite a spin on it to get straight people to exclude it from their decision forming process when considering homosexual sex practices and “homosexual rights.”
Her entire approach reeks of “Kinseyism”. It is a fabrication of an “intelligent” psychological and philosophical exegesis of the straight human’s reaction to the unnatural, harmful and indeed, repulsive sexual practices of homosexuals.
The FRI article states:
“Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law (2010) and Hiding from Humanity (2004) argues it is wrong to permit disgust to influence public policy regarding homosexuals. Most, she argues, have “a deep aversion akin to that inspired by bodily waste, slimy insects, and spoiled food-and then cite that very reaction to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same-sex marriage.” She believes the politics of disgust contradict equality of all under the law. “It says that the mere fact that you happen to make me want to vomit is reason enough for me to treat you as a social pariah, denying you some of your most basic entitlements as a citizen.”
Assuming that this is an accurate take on her argument, (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), in addition to shifting the focus away from the psychological, pathological, medical and spiritual harms involved with homosexual sex practices, Nussbaum attempts to convince us that our basic instinct to recognize depravity and our common wisdom in incorporating that basic instinct into our lawmaking is unrighteous and unjust, and in some way unethical. I would be interested in just what standard of ethics she is referring to.
Also, from the references addressed by the FRI article, I see nowhere that Nussbaum includes herself when addressing the “disgust” factor so I assume, given her forceful arguments, that she does not include herself as one who finds such homosexual activity to be disgusting. If that is true, perhaps she considers herself to be a “bright” who is enlightened beyond such trivialities and therefore would be honored if homosexuals would invite her to their nights of rimming, gold showers and fisting.
To me this is a con job, and attempt to make normal people think that their normal inclinations are unethical and unfair. It is in fact a demonstration of just how little such people think of those of us they feel are beneath them intellectually. To them, we are intellectually lost souls easily manipulated into thinking whatever they want us to think. All they need do is say the word and we bow to their great wisdom that make right wrong and wrong so right. No matter how ridiculous their argument, they think so little of us that they have the nerve to expect us to fall for it hook, line and sinker.
But it gets worst, she even goes so far as to try to explain our reactions and diagnose the reason for our disgust, (FRI):
“Although some disgust-reactions may have an evolutionary basis and thus may be broadly shared across societies, and although the more mediated types of disgust may be broadly shared within a society, that does not mean that disgust provides a disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be used for purposes of public persuasion… Disgust concerns thoughts of contamination as opposed to real harm; it is usually grounded on ‘magical thinking’ rather than on real danger; and its root cause is our ambivalence to our mortality and animalistic qualities, namely to what we are (mortal animals). (2004, 27-28)”
Note the evolution connection, because she thinks we are animals, it is rooted in our animalistic qualities. Hardly something to base laws on. And again, to her there is no real harm only “magical thinking”. Yet again, she ignores our medical, pathological, psychological and spiritual arguments rooted in well-established statistics. But it gets worst still. (FRI):
"[T]he central locus of disgust in today’s United States [is] male loathing of the male homosexual. Female homosexuals may be objects of fear, or moral indignation, or generalized anxiety, but they are less often objects of disgust. Similarly, heterosexual females may feel negative emotions toward the male homosexual — fear, moral indignation, anxiety — but again, they rarely feel emotions of disgust. What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas imaginable — to males, for whom the idea of non-penetrability is a sacred boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. The presence of a homosexual male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might oneself lose one’s clean safeness, one might become the receptacle for those animal products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one’s own imagined penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as a predator who might make everyone else disgusting. The very look of such a male is itself contaminating — as we see in the extraordinary debates about showers in the military. The gaze of a homosexual male is seen as contaminating because it says ‘You can be penetrated.’ And this means that you can be made of feces and semen and blood, not clean plastic flesh. (And this means you will soon be dead.) (2004, pp. 30-31)"
This is not only unintelligent; it is quite deceptive and as old as the history in the book of Genesis. In fact, this tactic is taken right out of Genesis chapter three. Just as the serpent caused Eve to rethink her correct understanding and convictions about God’s command and intentions, resulting in her changed perspective that made disobeying God appealing, Nussbaum attempts to convince us that our well placed disgust is misapplied as a result of our inner fear of being tainted and or homosexually violated. How this foolishness is allowed to pass for intellectualism is amazing to me.
My apology in advance for the following paragraph’s graphic description of a disgusting subject but it is necessary to make my point. Remember, Nussbaum opened the door to this foolishness.
We are disgusted by feces because of it’s smell and look and because we know what it is and it’s danger. We make laws based on that knowledge and experience which includes our inclination towards it’s disgust. Thus defecating in public is a crime, not because we have an imaginary fear of being forced to eat feces or any other such foolishness. But even if some did conger up images of being forced to eat feces when they laid eyes on it, (which is entirely possible), that alone has never resulted in laws being passed. As pointed out in the FRI article, Nussbaum ignores the other powerful reasons that we reject homosexuality.
I think she deceptively and intentionally does so in order to lay the ground work for desensitizing us to one of the most detestable aspects of homosexual pracitces.
Since they have successfully used the media, the press, TV/cable, the judiciary and education to gain acceptance of homosexuality as normal - natural behavior by following the strategy outlined in such homosexual documents as “After The Ball”[2], they apparently now feel comfortable enough to attempt to remove the “ick” factor, the more baser aspects of their pracitce that has indeed been a key factor in their rejection, and therein lies the motive for Nussbaum’s strange claims.
Nussbaum’s boldness in making such twisted declarations are obviously the results of her faith in the power of the homosexual activist community to run interference for her and shield her from any conservative-religious, professional-psychological, philosophical or moral academic rebuttal and out cry.
Relying on the homosexual activist’s past success in persuading the public to accept false conclusions by using openly strong-handed tactics, behind the seen cash advanced deal making, intimidation, manipulation and infiltration of media, academic and psychological organizations etc., Nussbaum has good reason to anticipate her successful duping of the American public.
Far too many Americas are ignorant of the scam that homosexual and pedophile Alfred Kinsey and his crew ran on us many years ago that resulted in the “sexual revolution” largely responsible for our current morally deprived state. A state that is evidenced by the tasteless, immoral and often sacrilegious dialogue that far too often passes for entertainment on prime time TV, Cable and in movies. We are apparently still ripe for another massive deception campaign that will aid in driving us even further down into the pit of moral depravity.
I am indebted to the Family Research Institute for their hard work and determination to provide invaluable information important to American families and I pray that people of faith everywhere will support such endeavors by them and other like-minded organizations.
God warned us in his word that such false teachers would come and would deceive many.
2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
[1] To be fair, I should say that F.R.I. may have addressed this aspect of Martha Nussbaum’s material and the homosexual agenda in other documents available on their web site.
[2] Harvard grads Marshall Kirk (psychologist) and Hunter Madsen (advertising) 1989