Telling Lies for Social Engineering

There is always one thing you can count on with the secular humanist social activists: since things like absolute truth and universal morality tend not to rate very high in their worldview, they seem to have little problem with bending the truth when it serves their purposes. Indeed, it seems to be a hallmark of these folk to make things up as they go along – all in the interests of pushing their radical social engineering agenda.

Consider how one secular activist has managed to present an article for public consumption which is riddled with lies, distortions, half-truths, myths and nonstop ad hominem attacks. But the end obviously justifies the means, so anything can be said if it advances the “cause”.

The article in question – which appeared on crikey – deals with the just-held National Marriage Breakfast held at Parliament House, Canberra. It is written by a homosexual activist, so one should not expect mere trifles such as facts, truth and honesty to stand in the way of his telling of the story.

We are informed that this gathering is an attempt by the “religious right” to “stare down the ALP from their bully pulpit” on the issue of same-sex marriage. Sorry, not quite. It was actually a rally held to celebrate and affirm the oldest, most universal, and most important of human institutions.

So has that now become a crime? And when a bunch of homosexual activists come together to push their political agenda, is that also to be regarded as an attempt to “stare down the ALP from their bully pulpit”? For some reason I don’t think they would describe things in those terms. When pro-family folk meet, it is only ever nefarious; when radical activists meet, it is all fully justified sweetness and light, evidently.

Consider also this mouthful: “Every gay-bashing, homophobic hate group will be represented in one way or another. The event has even been nick-named the ‘Muehlenberg Rally’, in recognition of serial homophobe Bill Muehlenberg from Victorias Australian Family Association being a key advocate for the event. Bill is very fond of using ‘research’ from anti-gay groups in the USA to show that homosexuals are diseased, depraved, irresponsible and promiscuous.”

I could spend a week trying to dissect all the nonsense contained here. But let me point out just a few things for starters. While it is an honour to know how important I seem to be in all this, this guy has managed to get everything he has said completely wrong.

Given that I have had nothing to do with the organising of this event, it is quite odd to be singled out as the driving force behind it. It is even more odd to be seen as such a major force of something I was not even part of. I was not even in the same state at the time. I was not even in the same country. But I suppose for these conspiracy theorists, facts are of little consequence.

I suppose I could have been on Mars for the past three months, and still be blamed for everything these oh-so tolerant types disapprove of. And I am part of the AFA? That is news to me, as it would be to the AFA. And he does not like my research? That is especially odd.

Then again we are dealing with an odd bunch. Just why does he not like my research? Because it is American research? Even if it were all solely from the US, so what? Strange, but when they are trying to justify something like same-sex adoption, they are quite happy to use stacks of research from the US all the time. Somehow it is wrong for their opponents to do the very same thing. But by now we should be used to these glaring double standards.

Indeed, let’s just look at this “US” data on homosexual promiscuity. Just how are the following research organisations – to name but a few – in any way American? The National Centre in HIV Social Research (Macquarie University); the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (University of New South Wales); and the AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON).

Do the homosexual activists discount their research? It is pretty hard to dismiss this research as being from ‘homophobic’ Americans. But since we are on the topic, let’s see what these research groups have to say. One of their studies found that 26 per cent of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41 per cent had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17 per cent had over 1000 partners.

A study of Melbourne homosexuals reported that 24 per cent of respondents said they had sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months, and 6.5 per cent had sex with more than 50 partners. Another study looking at sexual relationships with men over four years found that 77.2 per cent were never celibate. Only 5.3 per cent of male homosexuals over four years never had casual partners.

One of the most recent, and largest, national studies (involving 20,000 Australians) found that 35.3 per cent of homosexuals had 10 to 49 same-sex partners in a lifetime, while 38.2 per cent had 50 or more sexual partners in a lifetime.

The academic studies are backed up by the popular gay press. A casual perusal of the homosexual press reveals a predilection for this kind of behaviour. Consider but one recent example. A Melbourne writer, speaking of a New Year’s Eve celebration, speaks of “the essential tragedy of the heterosexual condition”. He explains,

“Heterosexuals, it seems, simply do not know how to pick up total strangers in the street and have uncomplicated animal sex with them. The world would undoubtedly be a happier place if they did. Certainly the den of depravity where I found myself at 3am was a considerably happier place. I had already had uncomplicated animal sex with two attractive men – at least they looked pretty attractive in the dark – and was hot on the trail of number three. I did not expect to marry them, fall in love with them or even find out their names. All around me groans and grunts indicated that a thoroughly happy new year was being had by all.”

So my homosexual critics will have to come up with some new ludicrous charge to discount the truth. But they tend to not let the facts stand in the way of pushing their agenda. Indeed, the rest of the article continues in the same vein: unsubstantiated charges, bluffs, half-truths and outright falsehoods. Anything to push their social engineering along.

But hey, why not? It worked great for other social engineers, like the Nazis. And the Marxists were also quite fond of holding morality hostage to the good of the cause. One is reminded of Saul Alinsky’s 1971 classic, Rules for Radicals. In it he told the radicals how to achieve their aims, and truth telling was just not on the agenda.

He wrote, for example, “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” Indeed, radical activists are only “concerned with how to win”. In fact, “in war the ends justify almost any means.”

So they regularly tell as many whoppers as they want, because it is for the good of the cause. This crikey article is a great example of this. Bluff and bluster your way through, and don’t let any facts or truth get in the way. But that is ever the way it is with these radical social deconstructionists.

One is reminded of the words of Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister: “If you tell any lie long enough, often enough, and loud enough, people will come to believe it.” This crikey article is but one more prime example of such tactics. The good news is, however, that truth will ultimately always defeat a lie.

www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=22743

[1331 words]

26 Replies to “Telling Lies for Social Engineering”

  1. Wow. In a way, I hope that they write more and more of this stuff. On the one hand, it’s hilarious because it’s so undeniably stupid, but also, because it just makes it easier to point out to people that they are bordering on derangement. Thanks for the link, I’m gonna keep a copy of it. Affirming marriage = “Gay-bashing”? Yes, I always get that idea whenever I attend weddings and I’m sure most here will agree – why the last one I attended had a terrific range of weapons inside the door… /sarcasm. But I’m actually miffed, Bill, you had this big shindig breakfast in your name and I wasn’t invited?! How rude!

    I can only speculate as to how many more “Happy New Year”s will be experienced by those participating in “uncomplicated (homosexual) animal sex”. Even if they managed to silence those who speak up for simple truths, sadly the facts about their own bodies will become evident as the consequences of that kind of abuse get realized. It really would be funny if people weren’t actually dying or falling sick as a direct result. But they are. The human body is just not made for this kind of mistreatment. And I’m certainly not ready to be forced to celebrate that, and I don’t think any other sane people are either.

    Mark Rabich

  2. LOL Bill. What an honour to be credited to be behind an event that you didn’t even attend.

    A Matthew 5:11 example if there ever was one.

    Ewan McDonald.

  3. Dear Bill, if they have to counter you then you must be on to a winner!
    Siti Khatijah

  4. Another article on homosexuality? Really? Surely there are more pressing social issues which im sure you are capable of dissecting just as baselessly and with such hyperbole.
    Michael Wentburg

  5. Nice article Bill. Take the time to revel in your fame. I found the quote you used kind of amusing.

    Bill is very fond of using ‘research’ from anti-gay groups in the USA to show that homosexuals are diseased, depraved, irresponsible and promiscuous.”

    I like the way he implies that this is an unfair characterization of homosexuals in general.

    Disease rates are higher among homosexsuals, they revel in their promiscuity and having sex with multiple partners you don’t even know the name of in the same night would probably be considered either depraved and/or irresponsible by most people.

    So I don’t really see what he is complaining about. It is an ugly reality of the homosexual “lifestyle”, parts of this ugliness even being something they openly celebrate.

    Jason Rennie

  6. Gay activists can be remarkably intemperate and careless with their criticisms. Weirdest I ever saw was a reference to Ignatius Press, the Roman Catholic publisher, as “the Catholic gutter press”. Who would have thought a publisher of the works of Chesterton could be in the gutter? I actually had an Ignatius catalogue at the time. There was nothing from the gutter in it.

    Speaking of gutter press, a penfriend of mine sent me an ad he had clipped from a popular Australian gay newspaper. It was an advertisement for body piercing and consisted of a crudely drawn cartoon of a naked woman bloodily pierced in the manner of Vlad the Impaler, a psychopathic sadist. My friend scanned subsequent editions of the newspaper to see if there were letters to the editor protesting. There was one. One hopes there were more.

    John Snowden

  7. Thanks Michael

    Ah, but here we go again: more lies and deception from the social engineers. Objective readers can of course determine who is really being baseless here and using hyperbole. Indeed, they can clearly see the reality of what is taking place:

    -homosexual activists attack those who simply seek to celebrate the historic and universal institution of heterosexual marriage, relying on ad hominem attacks, false allegations, deliberate deception, and so on.
    -I am viciously attacked and smeared in this public article, and a host of false and distorted claims are made about me.
    -I simply seek to set the record straight, call the bluff of my attackers, and tell the truth.
    -Homosexual activists write in and again manage to completely distort and pervert what has just taken place.

    Thank you again Michael for so perfectly demonstrating the modus operandi of the homosexual lobby. Thank you for so nicely making my case. I really don’t have to say anything, as you so perfectly exemplify all that I have been saying.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  8. Bill, to have been vilified in this way by the goose-stepping pinks is surely the highest accolade anyone could receive. This surely an honour that we must all strive to attain. But returning to the matter in hand, I wrote this in 2006:

    I am concerned by the eerie silence on the subject of homosexuality from many who hold responsible positions in Christian organizations and denominations. This seems to be ominously like the silence before some cataclysmic event. Surely they are aware of the issue – they must be – but little or no evidence of any awareness surfaces in their sermons, writings or other church materials. Is this a case of highly effective, conscious or semi/sub-conscious self-censorship and/or self-preservation?

    Is it a complacence based on the belief that things are not that bad or that this issue will just disappear? Is it a belief that there are more important issues to tackle like global poverty and pollution? Is it a worry that if they even dare to mention the subject there will be some in their congregations who will immediately take offence? Is it that church leaders do not know how to handle this issue, or people caught up with it, in the public life of the church and are fearful it will cause irreparable turmoil and schism?

    Is it that the status of ‘victim’ bestowed upon the gay today by various groups – PC leading lights, those who know and love gay people, those who care for the ‘oppressed’ and ‘downtrodden’ – silences all negative moral evaluation of gay living?

    Is it that any criticism of a gay lifestyle is seen as shocking and outrageous assault on those who claim ‘gay’ as a psycho-sexual or socio-political identity and on the entire gay community? Or is that the church itself has become infiltrated by the world – that we do not even notice adultery, abortion, the loss of Sunday, gambling that preys upon the gullibility of those who can least afford it. Have our consciences become seared?

    Or could it be that like the Pharisees who caught the woman in adultery, we suddenly realise that we have hidden sins that will be revealed if we try to expose those in others? Or could it be soon the threat of having to appear in court or even the possibility of going to prison? Which ever of these causes for reservation it is, the result seems to be a paralysis on the part of the church to say anything.”

    Surely by now – and coffee were served a long time ago– people must realise that we are not talking about that quiet and retiring homosexual neighbour, friend, relative, or couple who just want to be left alone to get on with the lives. as best they can. What we are talking about is a fanatically ideologically motivated group who have openly declared war on our families and children.

    David Skinner, UK

  9. May I present the following links as the context to that that follow, especially the third ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449526&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490 (suicide of Garry Frisch, founder of Gaydar.com)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=506197&in_page_id=1773 (Kevin Greening -risks and drugs and the face of homosexuality )

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/17/gayrights.digitalmedia ( let’s talk about sex)

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435558-details/Honeymoon%20over%20for%20gay%20marriages%20as%20number%20of%20civil%20partnerships%20plummets%20by%2050%20per%20cent/article.do ( 55% drop in civil partnerships)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/first-the-civil-partnerships-now-the-civil-dissolutions-1767362.html (First the civil partnerships, now the civil dissolutions)

    If the homosexual lobby stops telling lies about us we agree to stop telling the truth about them.

    David Skinner, UK

  10. Sodomy is bad and that’s worth mentioning from time to time, Michael, however, this post is about social engineering and it is, in fact, one of the most pressing issues of the day.
    Louise Le Mottee

  11. Lies, damned lies and (made up) Statistics. Worked for the pro-aborts, I guess it could work for the social engineers.
    Louise Le Mottee

  12. Also, logically, to be *for* something is by definition to be against anything opposed to it.

    Every gay-bashing, homophobic hate group will be represented in one way or another. The event has even been nick-named the ‘Muehlenberg Rally

    *sigh* I wish I could get there…

    I’m just living for the day these people call a pro-marriage, pro-family rally the “Le Mottee Rally” – well done, Bill! Really well done!

    Louise Le Mottee

  13. You forgot that ‘homosexuality’ does not exist. Everything existing is good through its being created through Love.

    If a person’s wonderful being is depraved of it and even if he helps it, it’s outcome is not existent but a consequence of sin which can be mended in Christ.

    Homosexuality is never a ‘property’ of a person!

    Christoph Rebner, Germany

  14. Surely there are more pressing social issues…

    If so, why wasn’t Mr. Wentburg able to name any?

    Michael Watts

  15. David Mixner, the most powerful man in American gay politics who is a vocal opponent of an ongoing campaign in California to protect the legal definition of marriage, was asked if he thought whether gay sexuality was all about sexual passion or whether there was room for lasting relationships. Mixner answered, “Well first of all I don’t see anything wrong with passionate relationships, or short term relationships if it is enriching, and nourishing and exciting for the individuals involved, and healthy for both parties. I try not to put parameters around anyone else’s relationship if they are happy. But I think one the things that we have explored and maybe one the gifts we bring society is that because we have not allowed to be officially sanctioned our relationships, in a number of ways – then we have had to explore alternatives. And I think that in many ways that we are seeing that many in the heterosexual community are copying some of those alternative ways that people can be together, love each other in a healthy wonderful positive sense and the same time meet the needs of a very complex society in which we live in.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C_rS0OOGlk

    Life sure gets complex.

    They take pains to tell us that when they attack us, give death threats, disrupt our church services, break up university forums, threaten us with public humiliation, fines, loss of jobs, and soon the threat of prison, this is not because they demand the civil right to be treated as equally human, to be integrated into society, to be able to sit at the front of the bus, to be able to eat in the same restaurants, or even to get married. What they demand is the right and freedom to deconstruct sex, marriage, family, society, creational ordinance and truth.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOcyYyxqN_g

    David Skinner, UK

  16. I followed that link to the Atheist Foundation of Australia and found this:

    “The growing list of countries running or intending to run Atheist adverts on buses are Britain, France, Spain, Italy, the USA, Canada, and Ireland. Places most likely to disallow displays of Atheists advertisements on buses are Australia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Africa and other politically/religious dysfunctional regimes.”

    Africa is a regime, and a “politically/religious” dysfunctional one at that? I thought it was a continent. One wonders if their metaphysics is as slack as their geography.

    I am in favour of atheists advertising on buses as long as they also advertise atheist crackpot pseudoscientific theories about selfish genes and memes. They could also advertise atheist ethical reasoning such as the idea that homosexuality must be normal and good because male monkeys and male fruitflies do queer things. And they could advertise atheist history too, such as that of the profoundly dysfunctional atheist regimes of the Communist bloc.

    John Snowden

  17. The homosexual lifestyle – you can join it and you can leave it. How does that differ to being a member of a bikie club chapter? They have a particular lifestyle too and most of their members are drawn to that way of life. But do they wield some mysterious innate “right” to upturn and change societal laws as it equally applies to them?
    Anthony McGregor

  18. A timely piece as always Bill.
    You last line is telling. Truth will eventually win. Let’s keep speaking, writing and living it, with patience till truth does win. Let’s pray too for people to be changed so that they do justly and love mercy and walk in humility.
    Greg Brien

  19. Thanks Bill – it was a very good response to the vitriol put out by Brian Greig. We were pleased to be labelled as well in the article…. just a little bit of persecution, as Ewan notes!

    Interestingly we weren’t there either … we were enjoying a holiday. Just one mention of the Breakfast in an email – after bookings were officially closed led Greig to draw a false conclusion. But what else do we expect?

    Brian Greig was a long-time activist for the homosexual cause before he entered the Senate. He was so focused on his cause that a great deal of what he did in the Senate promoted the homosexual agenda – including a genocide bill which included sexuality and anti-discrimination laws…

    One more thing: Michael – you criticised Bill’s analysis of Brian Greig’s ‘article’ in Crikey. Did you actually read the piece by Greig?

    Jenny Stokes

  20. Hey Bill,
    I was at the Canberra Marriage Celebration and it was very well organised. Only hitch was the stupid actions of a couple of homosexual activists who were calmly removed. Did nothing for their cause except bring it into more disrepute. As you mentioned, we were not there to bash gays. We were there to support and encourage marriage in the definition defined by legislation ie between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for life, freely entered into as a covenant relationship. Homosexuals can have their so called relationships(the term relationship implies knowing that person), but as you quite rightly point out, mostly they do not even know the person they are having sex with. These are not relationships. They are simply sexual liasons. This why I object to homosexuals wanting marriage. It is nothing of the sort-bears no resemblance to what marriage is. Call it what is is! The New testament describes what it is. Read 2Peter to get the idea!
    Blessings,
    Lou d’Alpuget

  21. Dear Bill,
    After just reading todays article about the homosexual activists being removed from the Marriage Celebration in Canberra last week, I can assure you that these people were not called “faggot” in my hearing! I was directly in front of them being in the front row, not 10 feet away. They were gently removed by security with professional finesse. Boy are these people sensitive. So were the pharisees when Jesus pointed out the truth to them! Homosexuality is not only a mental disease but a social disease as well. They need spiritual treatment from the one who can set them free from their addictions-the one and only incarnate Son of God, JESUS CHRIST!
    Blessings,
    Lou d’Alpuget

  22. Thanks guys

    Yes, everyone who was there seems to agree that the two activists have done a great job of embellishing their story. Just as the Marxists used to lie, cheat and do anything to further Marxist morality and goals, it seems that other activists groups are happy to do the same.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  23. I note with interest that you provide plenty of links about homosexual promiscuity but none at all about heterosexual promiscuity.

    I’m heterosexual and I have had over fifty different partners, some of which developed into relationships. This was over a period of about fifteen years and I have been celibate for the last seventeen years. So where do I fit according to your inferences and prejudices.

    I most certainly support “gay marriage”. I have known gay couples of both sexes who have been together far longer than heterosexual couples. Why should these loving people and they are people despite your obvious distaste for the lifestyle, be denied the legal security and comfort of a marriage purely on the basis of their sexuality.

    David Simpson

  24. Thanks David

    Before I respond, let me point out an interesting fact. This article has been up for a year now, with no real objections. Then all of a sudden, within the space of several hours, no less than seven homosexualists sent in angry comments denouncing me and my post (some more irrationally than others). One of them had the gall to begin with these words: “Stumbling upon this article…” Yeah right! A quick web search reveals where this orchestrated campaign originated. This is all just another example of telling lies for social engineering. You simply provide more proof of my point in this article!

    Suffice it to say I am not posting all these character assassinations here, so nicely orchestrated while feigning spontaneity. Indeed, I could mention another of these “comments”: In its six words the writer managed to misspell three of them! And we are supposed to take these guys and their ideas seriously?

    But back to your comment. Your self-confessed promiscuity and apparent unchecked lust are nothing to boast about. All promiscuity is harmful and dangerous, and this site makes it clear that it all needs to be rejected. However important studies involving very large sample groups have clearly proven that homosexual promiscuity is greater than heterosexual promiscuity, including the number of sexual partners. All the more reason why the institution of marriage needs to be protected from the corrosive effects of homosexual activity. And the reasons for regarding homosexual marriage as an oxymoron I discuss elsewhere.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: