Science > Abortion > Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Rob Wade" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2005 04:53:29 PM |
| Object: |
Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy |
Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
I thought it would be a good idea today to begin with some brief
comments on the eventful year of progress which has happened to our
organization. From a small group of only three people--Dr. Benjamin
Kaufman, Dr. Joe Nicolosi, and myself--in March 1992 an organization
was born with a spirit to light its way. We have now become an
organization of over five hundred members, representing the best of
psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, and social work.
The activities of our organization have been well reported in the NARTH
Bulletin over the last two years, and I feel I can report that we are
growing healthier and stronger every day, and that the Bulletin is
thriving under the guidance of Linda Nicolosi who has done so much for
us, especially in the last year, as editor along with Dr. Nicolosi.
These are perilous times we have passed through, and the incidents and
events that we have successfully overcome have all been documented in
the NARTH Bulletin in quite a lot of detail. All the struggles with gay
movement within The American Psychoanalytic Association, the notable
battle with the Gay Caucus in the American Psychiatric Association
(1994), which had so willfully and dishonestly attempted to declare us
unethical for treating homosexuals, have all but ended (it should be
noted that a similar effort is being launched by activists within the
American Psychological Association as we go to press). In large measure
this was a victory for NARTH for it is our strong belief that our
humanitarian treatment of homosexual patients who desire to be rid of
the yoke of homosexuality should not only be allowed but applauded. It
is, as well, against all humanistic concepts embodied in our
profession, as well as against the first-amendment rights of any
individual seeking help, and the first-amendment rights of any
therapist to attempt to outlaw or discriminate against such treatment.
Our position was strengthened by an earlier Resolution of the Social
Issues Committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association (May 1993)
to the effect that treatment must not be interfered with. The attempt
to stop treatment for homosexuality in the American Psychiatric
Association--a proposal by gay activists--was defeated at the May 1994
Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. I trust you are
all aware of these events and give much credit to our organization for
its leadership in these matters.
In my 1994 report I noted that a revolutionary change in sexual mores
and customs had been ushered in by that singular act of considerable
consequence--the removal of homosexuality from the category of
aberrancy by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. It was a
fateful consequence of, and disregard of established psychoanalytic and
psychological knowledge of human sexual behavior. At that time I
presented an account of the social and political forces within and
without the American Psychiatric Association responsible for this act,
and critically examined the spurious and pseudoscientific reasons put
forth for the removal of a diagnosis from the diagnostic and
statistical manual. This removal amounted to a full approval of
homosexuality and an encouragement to aberrancy by those who should
have known better, both in a scientific sense, and in the sense of the
social consequences of such removal. Those who wished to retain
homosexuality as a valid diagnosis had been essentially silenced at
meetings, lectures, and publications--a silencing that originates both
from within our organizations and from other sources. Political parties
and religious leaders have been utilized to reinforce this silence. The
press was thoroughly influenced; the electronic media, television, and
movies began to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and
censored all information that might show homosexuality as a disorder.
Movies have been routinely censored by a gay Hollywood review board for
the last 7 to 8 years; other films critical of homosexuality have been
boycotted at the box-office; books which portray homosexuality in any
unfavorable way have not been published, and many books have been
removed from library shelves in universities and public libraries. Of
over 500 titles found in a major bookstore in New York City, only 2 or
3 were found to be at all critical of homosexuality or the homosexual
movement. Homosexual sex education entered our schools and colleges,
and pro-gay activists--homosexual and otherwise--portrayed their way of
life as normal and as "American as apple pie," intimidating others with
different views. In essence, this movement has accomplished what every
other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper
with: a revision of the basic code and concept of life that men and
women normally mate with those of the opposite sex and not with each
other.
This psychiatric nonsense and social recklessness has brought with it
many individual tragedies which you've all heard in your consultation
rooms. Men and women who no longer care for their appropriate gender
roles have created confusion in the very young for generations to come.
Homosexuals in therapy have tended to develop tremendous resistances.
Medical specialists such as pediatricians are terribly confused. For
example, one of our pediatric journals, influenced by gay activism, has
recently announced (Spring 1995) that parents should not be encouraged
to seek therapy for children with gender-defined self disorders, which
are actually the nuclear problem in obligatory homosexuality! Thus the
removal of homosexuality from the DSM--a political not a scientific
decision--was simply the opening phase of a war with normality. It was
part of a two-phase sexual radicalization, the second phase being the
raising of homosexuality to the level of alternative lifestyle. This
removal of a diagnosis was a Trojan Horse which, once admitted into the
gates of the heterosexual world, has led to a sexual and social
dementia.
Today I would like to address the question of how this has happened
before the very eyes of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists
and social workers--and the public--most of whom, it would seem, have
not apprehended the full meaning of what they have been subjected to.
Surely it says much as to the status of objective clinical judgment
when even experienced clinicians are not aware of what they have been
exposed to.
While preparing for my talk I was asked by a learned colleague what the
subject would be. I said that I was of two minds: to talk about
clinical material representing advances in treatment, or to speak about
how it all happened--the programming of America and the acceptance of
the homosexual advocacy. What was her choice? She replied
energetically, "Of course you must speak about what has happened to the
nation because my kids go to Horace Mann High school in New York City
and they're told now that they must come to Assembly for two days in a
row to talk about how 'normal' homosexuality is, and how 'indecent,'
and how 'undemocratic,' and 'homophobic' it is to have any negative
views of such physiological and sexual functioning." She said, "I
simply don't know what to do. I never raised my kids to be homosexual."
I shall therefore speak of how it has come about that we currently
suffer, and how many stand mute, under the threat of being called
"undemocratic" or "prejudiced" if we do not accept certain assumptions
thrust upon us, as if deprived of all intellectual capacity to judge
and reason.
Two further incidents are a spur to my resolve to comment, as time will
permit, on some of the psychological mechanisms employed in the
reprogramming of America. I propose to tell you how it is that a young
woman returning from a college in Maine, influenced by the gay
propaganda, college-funded gay groups, and those in her
community--which was about to vote on pro-gay measures in support of
the approval of the homosexual agenda--a nonhomosexual young woman with
a background of culture and classical learning--makes the startling
announcement during a discussion of the issue with her parents: "But
Dad and Mom--We are on the high moral ground, and you are not!"
A third incident which epitomizes our situation is a story that ran in
the New York Post a few days ago: "The Case of Rubin Diaz," which I
feel illustrates homosexual totalitarianism in action. On Wednesday,
July 19, 1995 New York was witness to an attack of "shaming" by gay
activism in the city council of New York City. Reverend Rubin Diaz was
not renewed in his role as panelist-member to the Civilian Complaint
Review Board to the Police Department of New York City. Diaz had
apparently infuriated gays by suggesting that the 1994 Gay Games here
would spread AIDS, and for that was roundly abused by gay activists.
His name was to have been submitted to council vote for re-appointment.
Diaz, an outspoken critic of last summer's Gay Games 1994 in New York,
saw his name suddenly withdrawn and laid over for consideration at a
later date--a parliamentary maneuver that shielded the minister from a
vote. It was said by one of his closest supporters that he didn't have
enough votes for re-appointment.
This tactic will permit Diaz to continue on the board, but there is no
escaping the terrible reality that if his name had been submitted
(according to Ray Kerrison, a columnist for the New York Post) the
council would have voted him out because he preached and upheld the
biblical strictures against homosexuality. Diaz headed the Bronx
Hispanic Clergy Organization and served thousands of poor, elderly, and
ailing in the city of New York. He himself conceded that the pressure
of this ordeal was just becoming too great: "People have been mean." he
said, "They're lying about me, trying to ruin me; it never ends. No
matter what I do or say, they will never be satisfied. That's why I
would like it to be all over." So finally even Mr. Diaz is breaking
down.
A reporter asked Diaz why he did not apologize for asserting that the
Gay Games would spread AIDS in New York (which they would) and "teach
young adults that homosexuality is okay." Here was his opportunity.
He said, "America was founded on biblical principles and I cannot deny
them. Does that make me a racist, or a hate-monger, or homophobic? No,
the bible teaches me to love everyone, to be fair and just. If I hated
anyone, it would disqualify me from Heaven. If I hate gays, I'm
spiritually dead."
Diaz believes homosexuality is morally wrong--a belief propounded in
the Old and New Testaments and upheld by many of the population. For
that, a council majority was ready to run him off the Complaint Review
Board. The campaign against him has been orchestrated by Tom Duane, the
openly gay democratic council member. Duane had part of the chamber
stacked yesterday with a radical gay clique yelling, "Shame, shame,
shame!"
Pointing to Duane's noisy crowd, another council member said, "They're
nothing more than purveyors of self-righteousness. They go around
desecrating the cathedral, reviling the host, and attacking the
Cardinal, and claim that it is moral. But they cannot respect a
difference of opinion from anybody else."
Diaz finally said, "If the council votes on my record, I'll be
reappointed; if it votes on my religion, I will not be reappointed."
This is a "foul day's work" according to Ray Kerrison. But it is more
than that, Mr. Kerrison; these gay activists are not voting against Mr.
Diaz's religion; religion stands in the way--and in backing our
position on this issue, religion becomes a stalwart friend of science,
morality, and a healthy sexual life. But the main thrust is not against
religion but against our scientific findings. His religious beliefs are
used against Mr. Diaz in order to induce him to conform to the ideology
of the homosexual movement. This is an example of the shaming and the
thought reform which has swept the country. It is one of the techniques
of thought reform that has been widely applied and tremendously
successful. It's purpose is to coerce, intimidate, and promote pain and
suffering in those who oppose the views of those who have assumed
authority over the personal lives of our nation.
In reviewing these events, my wife, who has an unerring aptitude for
getting to the heart of the matter, casually mentioned, "You know, it
seems to me that what's happened to everybody is that they have been
brainwashed." Now "brainwashing" is a common term that's been used and
abused in many ways. It can mean anything from a secretary being
"brainwashed" by a boss to work late hours without pay, to the
influence exerted by a cult-leader, to the brainwashing of U.N.
soldiers brought from South Korea to North Korea asprisoners in 1953-4.
Is this too strong and dramatic a term to apply to the homosexual
movement in America? It is not the physical torture of forced isolation
or other physiological techniques, but if one looks carefully at what
has happened to the nation, one comes up with the alarming conclusion
that, indeed, a form of national "brainwashing" has been employed by
the propagandists of the homosexual movement.
The original work on thought control was done by Robert J. Lifton, an
intrepid American army psychiatrist in 1961, later on the faculty of
Yale, who described the communist takeover of China, how it led to a
dramatic change in the beliefs of a population, with severe mental and
physical punishment meted out to anyone who held a different point of
view. The techniques used to radically change the intellectual and
emotional climate of the Chinese people bears, in my opinion, an
amazing similarity to the "brainwashing" of a nation as regards
homosexuality (see Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A
Study of "Brainwashing" in China by Robert J. Lifton, M.D., W.W. Norton
and Company, 1961). The techniques of thought reform and persuasion
described by him appear to have been successfully adapted in this
country by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a book entitled After the
Ball: How America Will conquer its Fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990s
(published by Plume Press, Penguin Group, 1989). Lifton's work itself,
quite understandably, is not cited by the authors. The closest they
came to such an acknowledgement is their comment: "...the principles
are known, and the methods work." Marshall Kirk is a researcher in
neuropsychiatry of enormous intelligence who works almost exclusively
with aptitude tests for adults with IQs of over 200. Hunter Madsen
received his doctorate in politics from Harvard, and is an expert in
public persuasion tactics and social marketing. He designs commercial
advertising for Madison Avenue and has served as consultant to gay
media campaigns across the country. Together they became a formidable
pair as advocates for "gay rights" and the upsetting the heterosexual
applecart".
Beginning in 1989, After the Ball became the guiding manifesto for a
new brand of pragmatic gay activism across the nation. According to its
authors, who laid it all out, it outlined a bold plan for conquering
what was termed "bigotry" by exploiting the mass media. At no loss for
candor, Kirk and Madsen assert the issue would be "MONEY" for the
dissemination of our propaganda. "Success depends as always our
flooding the media." (p. 157) It laid the groundwork for the new gay
revolution, and has been responsible for the reprogramming--the thought
reform--of America itself on the issue of homosexuality. Kirk and
Madsen insisted that earlier attempts to increase public acceptance of
homosexuality had all but failed, and that they would continue to fail
without the implementation of: (1) complete control of the media; (2) a
"desensitization" of the public as regards homosexuality; and (3) a
polarization of thought through the promotion of an emotional
dissonance in every thinking individual. The basic features of thought
reform and the psychological currents upon which it depends are as
follows: (1) The control of all human communication on the subject; (2)
An extensive personal manipulation of the public. (3) "Jamming" (a
technique to promote emotional dissonance involving insertion into the
heterosexual individual of a incompatible emotional response as regards
homosexuality). To quote After the Ball:
Jamming (heterosexuals) is more active and aggressive than
desensitization: by the same token it is also more enjoyable and
heartening (to homosexuals). Jamming makes use of the rule of
associative conditioning (according to the authors)--the psychological
process whereby when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed--one's
feelings about one are transferred to the other. An incompatible
emotional response is directed to make people feel shame when they
perceive that they are not feeling, thinking, or acting like one of the
pack [the homosexual pack]. The trick is to get the average
heterosexual into the position of feeling a twinge of shame so that,
via repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements, any
thinking or expression as regards the abnormality of
homosexuality--will come to be incompatible with his inner image as a
well-liked person--one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus
propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement
as homophobic bigots who are "not Christian" and the propaganda can
further show them as being criticized, hated, and shunned (Kirk and
Madsen, p. 150-153).
And further:
...."Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or
proof...through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the
person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack
or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface
arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the
process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the
slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed
beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality" (Kirk and Madsen,
p, 152-153).
It should be noted that an unplanned emotional dissonance was
tragically introduced by the unfortunate and catastrophic reality of
AIDS reaching epidemic proportions in the homosexual community.
Throughout the nation, homosexuals were thus legitimately viewed as
needy individuals to whom all of us are merciful and compassionate,
while at the same time a disturbance was produced in the nation's
psyche as regards to the disapproval of homosexuality itself.
(4) Conversion: By conversion is meant a planned psychological attack
in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media, "making
Americans hold us in warm regard, whether they like it or not." (Kirk
and Madsen, p. 154).
In conversion the heterosexual is repeatedly exposed to literal
pictures/labeled pairs of homosexual people who look like classic
heterosexuals. The image must be that of an icon of normality. The ads
will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not. The
heterosexual will feel two incompatible emotions--a good response to
the picture, and a bad response to the label (homosexual)...At worst
the two will have canceled one another and we will have successfully
jammed; at best associative conditioning will, to however small extent,
transfer the positive emotion associated with the picture to the label.
....In conversion, the target is shown his own crowd associating with
gays in good fellowship with total approval of their homosexuality
(Kirk and Madsen p. 154-155).
Let us first address the "control of human communication" effected by
the homosexual movement. For this purpose I shall borrow freely from
Dr. Lifton's observations and point out what is strikingly similar in
the propaganda of both movements: communistic totalism and homosexual
totalism. The gay movement has established almost complete domain not
only over the individual communication with the outside world--that is,
all one sees and hears, reads and writes, experiences and expresses on
the subject of homosexuality (a censorship of which you all are
aware)--but it has also penetrated one's inner life, that is, one's
communications with oneself. As Lifton suggested, such an atmosphere is
uncomfortably reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. This type of
communication has the assumption of an air of omniscience, a conviction
that reality is the exclusive possession of the gay movement, for these
gay social planners consider it their duty to create an environment
containing no more and no less than the "truth" as they see it. The
average individual is thus deprived, as Lifton puts it, "of the
combination of external information and inner reflection" which anyone
requires to test the realities of the environment and to maintain a
measure of identity separate from it. Look at the fact that the
American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations can be so blind to
the facts of life, to the scientific evidence of over a hundred years
supplied by psychoanalytic research, to the fact that children, boys
and girls, differ anatomically and psychologically and are designed
anatomically and psychologically for complementariness, and to the
erosion of family structure, family cohesion so implicit in the total
approval of homosexuality. In such an environment one undergoes a
"personal closure" which frees one from the incessant struggle with the
elusive subtleties of truth and, therefore, in a sense, one is
programmed. No one dares speak out. If an individual's intellect and
honesty make him resist, he feels estranged. Just look at Mr. Diaz; it
took a lot to estrange him but he apparently is breaking down.
Another feature of thought control is "extensive personal manipulation.
This psychological technique, according to Kirk and Madsen, seeks to
provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that
they will appear to have arisen spontaneously from within the
environment. This is what has happened gradually with the acceptance of
homosexuality as normal by a large segment of the public. It seems
spontaneous; it seems as if it's directly perceived as being some law
of social development, or of being in the vanguard of a mission, a new
way thinking and development. The average individual is made to feel:
"Gayness is truth; gayness is the absence of prejudice; gayness is the
absence of discrimination; gayness is the will of the people--because
all people wish to be free--gay is free, gay is freedom.
Except that gayness, in my opinion and in yours, is a "freedom to far,"
(explored in my book, A Freedom Too Far, 1995, Adam Margrave Books,
Phoenix, AZ) a fictive freedom, a freedom that does not really exist,
for it is a freedom that flies in the face of the reality of the
male/female design, in the face of evolution itself--it is a freedom
that cannot be given. If one questions the correctness of the gay view,
however, this questioning is considered to be stimulated by lower
purposes--to be backward, selfish, and petty. The average individual
feels unable to escape. And that's why important and ordinary
people--everyone from the mayor of a large city to baseball players,
priests, the average housewife, and so forth--can join the march on Gay
Pride Day and chant the call of the homosexual agenda on television as
representing democracy, nondiscrimination, and liberation. It is why
the young woman returns from Maine and announces with absolute
conviction: "But we are on the high moral ground." It explains how
school-board members in Cloverdale, CA can vote with an easy conscience
to include homosexual sex education in school curriculums on a par with
that of heterosexuality with the rationalization that they are simply
showing "compassion."
Another feature of thought reform is to divide us into the "pure" and
the "impure'--into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil. The
good and pure, of course, are those who swallow the homosexual
ideology. Relegated to the "bad and impure" are the protestations of
"dissident' heterosexuals. The institution of heterosexuality is to be
made impure, and this existing state of impurity is to be dramatized by
public displays of outrage, designed by homosexual activists, against
public figures, speakers, writers, or psychiatric clinicians with
opposing views. Mr. Diaz is made "impure" and "bad" when he has to
endure indictment, conviction, and is attacked with epithets of "Shame,
shame, shame!" when he dares to say, "I do not believe that homosexual
behavior is normal, and I believe in the fact that introducing
thousands of gay athletes into the city of New York will increase the
number of AIDS cases"--which it would. Such a turning about--a turning
of the world upside-down--is what is happening.
When an individual fails to meet the prevailing standards of casting
out these "impurities within himself," he is expected to feel
humiliation and ostracism, and ultimately he may recant in order to
regain his "lost pride." This is undoubtedly what has happened to large
segments of the nation as a whole who have been taken in by this
psychological totalism of the gay agenda, and who have lost the
capacity for discernment, objectivity, and truth.
I have explained to you at least some of the intricate techniques of
psychological mindbending, as first reported by Robert J. Lifton, in
order to inform and protect individuals and nations from the insidious
and terrifying effect of thought-reform. I furthermore believe that
such techniques were effectively and convincingly utilized by the gay
movement in order to convert legislators, behavioral scientists,
religious leaders, and the public at large to the belief that
homosexuality should not only be tolerated but encouraged, thereby,
raising it to the level of a normal psychosexual institution to be
wholeheartedly embraced in the name of nondiscrimination.
After the Ball is chilling indeed: chilling in its diabolism, chilling
in its hatred of straight America, chilling in its advocacy of lack of
conscience, chilling in its brutal and naked lust not for sex but for
power.
There are notable politicians as well as private individuals--leading
democrats and republicans alike--who would accommodate the gay movement
for the 1996 presidential election, thinking that a line need not be
drawn, failing to perceive that this is a war for the minds, hearts,
and souls of our youth. When we appease the homosexual agenda we
appease not them but ourselves. Those high-ranking politicians who
travel in the same circles as high-ranking homosexuals consider it
declasse to take a moral stand. They will not speak out on this issue,
nor will they take to task those who refuse to publish or review books
that dare to question the gay mythology. "Why would they not speak
out?", we ask. Because the techniques of communication control,
desensitization, jamming, shaming, and coercion have worked on both
republican and democratic leadership alike, as they have on the public
at large. This is dangerous for Nature will not tolerate a vacuum. But
as leaders they have a responsibility to us all. These so-called
"leaders" seek to survive in an empty territory between tolerance of
homosexuality--which we totally endorse--and promotion and celebration
of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. But this is a no-man's
land, for he or she who will not publicly resist the promotion of
homosexuality as normal has, in fact, endorsed it.
There is no in-between ground here, for, like it or not, this is a
battle, and one is on one side of the line or one is on the
other--there is no such thing as being neutral on this issue.
Unpleasant as it is--we must face this reality. There is too much at
stake. And so the purpose of NARTH is augmented to remind us all that
we are American, that our nation's legacy is that we are a people who
have always been able to think for ourselves. That this current battle
is not being fought on the fields of Normandy or in the Persian Gulf,
but that it is a battle for our minds--and that our minds must be
strong--strong enough and aware enough to resist being taken over by
the minds of others who would then destroy our hearts and tear apart
our souls.
Gay friends of heterosexuals will not long remain friends should that
heterosexual say to them "I love you, you have always been my friend. I
would defend to the death your right to be gay and that you be free of
persecution by anyone, but I also defend my right to say that I don't
believe that homosexuality is normal and I don't want that falsehood
taught to my child in school." All human discourse between friends
would thereafter cease when addressing a gay activist. This is a case
of loyalties, and the heterosexual would from that moment on be called
"bigot," "unintelligent," "opinionated," or "homophobic."
There is no in-between ground. This is ultimately about the protection
of America's youth from such groups as NAMBLA and militant homosexuals
who seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between
homosexual men and young boys to the age of fourteen (as in Hawaii,
1993) or sixteen (as in England, 1994). They have told us, "We're here.
We're Queer. And we are coming after your children." How much more do
we need to know?
Finally, I wish to end on a positive note. This has been a critical
time and we have fought well in several battles. Lying corruption,
misinformation, and thought control, in my opinion, will have their day
and will pass on. History tells us that you cannot control the minds of
people for too long for, in time, they will rise up and cast off
itotalistic indoctrination. By 1996 there may be a major change. We
must spend every effort increase our membership, to publish books and
papers, and to resist being silenced. We must cling to our friends and
advance our scientific ideas freely, and thus, I believe, through
truth, sincerity, and perseverance, we will be victorious in protecting
family life and furthering the mental health of the nation.
.
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy |
11 Oct 2005 04:55:20 PM |
|
|
In News 1129067609.237038.134290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,, Rob Wade at
rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com, typed this:
Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Credibility Zero.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
