That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

Well that accelerated pretty quickly – as soon as I feature Melvin Tinkers That Hideous Strength – he gets banned from preaching at the CU carol service in Derby (see this weeks Quantum)!  Not that I am claiming direct correlation – but it will be interesting to see what happens after our second look at the book!  Before we do that have a look at this short video in which Melvin summarises the premise behind the book.

Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

In chapter 4 Melvin identifies something that is absolutely vital and yet which many Christian leaders seem to be either unaware of, or reluctant to deal with.    It is also something which our politicians seem ignorant of, or indeed powerless to deal with (although there are a handful such as Patrick Harvie and the Greens who know precisely what is happening).

In this chapter Tinker superbly summarises what has happened to the West on the issue of sexuality by describing the Gramscian strategies used by those who are opposed to a biblical world view.

A vital book in this was Kirk and Madsens’ After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.  Kirk and Madsen combined psychiatry and public relations expertise to set out their strategy.    They advocated a gradualist approach (getting your foot in the door) before going on to use three ploys.

  1. Desensitisation – Create a flood of pro-homosexual advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion.
  2. Jamming – More active and aggressive than desensitisation.   Aim to produce ’emotional dissonance’.  Portray those who are traditional in their stance as KKK type right-wing homophobes.  Make sure that anyone who dares to disagree with your agenda is automatically labelled in this way.  Ensure that a reasonable case against your position is never presented – always ensure it is the extremes.
  3. Conversion – Desensitisation lets the watch run down; jamming throws sand in the works, but conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backwards. In advocating this approach they actually taught that it was ok to lie (because they had been lied about).   “It makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us because we are using them to ethically good effect. to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies”

As Goebbels knew there were three characteristics to propaganda  – rely on emotional manipulation, use lies and be subjective and one-sided.     Kirk and Marsden saw the church as the major obstacle and so should be attacked and undermined in every way possible (although I would suggest that the church had already been undermined by the presence of false teachers who were only too happy to go along with the worlds agenda).

“Christians are always more culturally short-sighted than they realise.  They are often unable to tell, for instance, where their Christian principles leave off and their cultural perspectives begin.  What many of them fail to ask themselves is, ‘where are we coming from and what is our context?” (Os Guinness)

The gay lobby has been remarkably successful – using all the main cultural transformers – including the media and education.

Tinker notes that popular series which promote sexual promiscuity and infidelity, such as Desperate Housewives and Sex in the City were all written by gay men.   In 1996 the gay writer David Ehrenstein wrote that there were openly gay writers on almost every major prime time situation comedy you can think of – Friends, Seinfeld, The Single Guy, High Society and many others.  He wrote;” In short – when it comes to sitcoms, gays rule”.  The issue is not so much the issue of homosexuality, but rather the issue of sexual promiscuity.

(I note in passing that someone contacted me to tell me that in their media studies degree in a UK University – 20 out of 25 in the class were openly gay).

Education:

The other big area of influence is education.  Lesbian activist Patricia Warren notes :  “Whoever captures the kids, owns the future”.     Tinker cites the ‘Educate and Celebrate’ movement which like all such organisations is a charity which relies on government funding – and which seeks to ensure that all schools have LGBTI education and activities.  There are numerous examples of the kind of propaganda being fed to our children, from the TIE campaign in Scotland to Drag Queen Story Time.  Watch this video where one such Drag Queen admits that “this is the grooming of the next generation”

But as well as promotion of one point of view – there is the attempt to silence the other point of view.  There have been numerous examples of people being disciplined or removed from their courses because they dare to disagree with the Queer Theory philosophy.

“Universities are supposed to be places where a hugh diversity of views can be heard.  Not any more, not in our universities.  If you don’t subscribe to every one of their modern, secular, liberal beliefs you’re out on your ear.  Either banned from speaking at their campuses or thrown of your course.  Just because you believe in something they don’t”  (Rod Liddle)  (as Melvin experienced last week!)

This silencing is made all the easier because of the lynch mob mentality that can be whipped up through Facebook and Twitter.   People just want to keep their heads down and shut up (I have lost count of the number of times that LGBT activists have contacted Dundee University to try to get me thrown out as a chaplain).

Where does all this end?  As Piers Morgan asked in this clip will we end up with literally nobody in the future identifying as male and female – to which Munroe Bergdof responds ‘maybe’.  This is the pit of hell into which we are descending…God help our children….

The Re-imaging of Humanity – 3 – The Transgender Revolution

24 thoughts on “That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

  1. In terms of the UK, the church is so small now, I wonder if the disproportionate attack was more to do with the fact that the agenda couldn’t be justified scientifically or philosophically. Of the big three cultural utilities, (Science, Philosophy and Theology) Theology is perceived as the weakest. Cue projected anger and rage.
    I could be wrong though. Maybe it’s both.

    Like

  2. Years ago I first heard the new definition of an old familiar word—gay. Understanding that the lexicon is THE FIRST STRIKE, preemptive weapon in the War of Worldviews, I resolved to never use the word gay in its new meaning, even though homosexual, having five syllables, is more work to say and write. It’s just too easy to slip a one syllable word in there. Now we in the U.S., and our cousins across the Atlantic, are expected to smoothly adopt a whole new lexicon for the trans posse: cisgender, deadnaming, trans-exclusionary, gender dysphoria yada yada yada. I reject the entire new lexicon. The war of words is the war of worldviews.

    Like

      1. Ok, so? Language changes for all sorts of reasons, but when there’s a blizzard of meaning changes and created words added to the public lexicon in a short time—gay, cisgender, misgendering, deadnaming, homophobia—to name only a few, what is going on is a marketing campaign meant to desensitize and misdirect.

        Like

      2. Gay has meant a person with exclusive attraction to the same sex all of my life.

        I think it is not that these terms are suddenly new, but they are suddenly part of public discussion

        Like

      3. Bark, meaning a sailing ship of a certain type, can also be spelled ‘barc’ or ‘barque’. Whichever way you spell it, it still means today a sailing ship of a certain type. It is not uncommon for the same word in English to have several meanings. Take the word ‘bear’ for example. Teachers of foreign languages routinely warn their pupils about simplistic use of foreign language dictionaries. Yesterday I used the Google translator to translate an article in Swedish. It translated the Swedish for ‘funeral’ as ‘earthquake’ and the Swedish for ‘celebrant’ as ‘cell burner’.
        But you are absolutely correct in stating that languages change. However, there is a difference between changes which occur ‘naturally’ and those which are designed to manipulate a language for a particular purpose. An example of the latter was the way that Communist-controlled countries in Eastern Europe called themselves ‘people’s democracies’. I would submit that many of the changes which have occurred in our own language in recent years are designed to manipulate people’s thoughts.

        Like

  3. Stanley Baldwin’s comment regarding the newspaper barons Rothermere and Beaverbrook would seem to take on a refreshed meaning in the light of all this:
    “The newspapers attacking me are not newspapers in the ordinary sense…they are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal vices, personal likes and dislikes of the two men. What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehoods, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker’s meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context…What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”

    Like

  4. You have acknowledged before (please correct me if I am wrong) that

    gay people should not be feared or hated by Christians

    and that

    Not all gay people are promiscuous.

    I am wondering then if you feel that Tinker is being quite biased in his approach to this.

    Example 1,

    its undoubtedly the case that lots of gay men are involved in the entertainment industry, but its a leap to suggest that they are only doing so to try to change culture. Its also the case that many have written sitcoms in which the characters are promiscuous, but is this a reflection of society or an attempt to change society? Is their writing any different to that of their straight peers?

    I would say that actually pretty well every scripted TV show and film has heterosexuality as a central theme!

    Example 2

    Its undoubtedly the case that most gay people want society to fully accept them as equals and to end fear and hatred of gay people. Tinker doesn’t seem to say why this is sinister – surely everyone wants to be accepted? (or why it is a bad thing).

    Like

      1. To clarify

        Are you claiming that all gay people are promiscuous and that reducing fear/hatred of gay people is a bad thing

        Or

        Are you saying that Tinker is not claiming that all gay people are promiscuous or that reducing fear/hatred of gay people is a bad thing.

        If the latter then you may wish to reconsider your words in this blog because they certainly read to me in a way that you did not intend.

        Like

      2. If you try to take an objective read of your comments (sorry it’s not clear if they are yours or Tinkers) then you do indeed describe the ideal of “conquering fear and hatred of gay people” as opposing a “biblical worldview”.

        Like

    1. The simple fact is that Tinker (and David) take their stance on homosexuals from the bible.

      The only possible means by which homosexuals can even begin to become tolerable to the likes of Tinker is to lead a celibate life.

      Of course I suspect that even that isn’t enough for a vast number of Christians, but they like to pretend that they are fine with homosexuals – provided they abstain from sex – by almost always condemning homosexual sex along with, for example, adultery…..as if they consider all sexual sin on an even par. That’s just pure subterfuge.

      How many blog posts has David written on adultery?

      It’s like the garbage the religious ran in their desperate attempts to beat down the introduction of same-sex marriage. They moaned again and again about “the children”. The “destruction of the family”. All transparent nonsense. They simply think they own marriage and get to tell the rest of us who can and cannot get married. Well – they found out differently.

      David and other Christians simply adore trotting out their mantra about this supposedly dark, insidious underbelly to homosexuals attempts to turn the tide of discrimination and hatred – both legislated and social – which they have faced since time immemorial.

      Who really thinks that a wish to lead a life free of social stigma and legislated inequality is a bad thing?

      Christians never breath a word about all the pure unsubstantiated drivel they have conjured up with regard to homosexuals. The plainly stupid Christian insistence that people “choose” to be homosexual. Who else do you really think is responsible for the emergence of the myth that an individual can have their sexual orientation changed through counselling – that they can “pray the gay away”.

      There never seems to be a word breathed about why someone might feel they need to undergo counselling to change their sexual orientation – it is just baldly assumed that they should and to hell with the years of misery and self-hate that this sort of rubbish perpetuates.

      If there is anything dark and insidious around it’s this blog entry. What can David possibly be trying to say when he provides the statistic that 20 out of 25 students enrolled in a media studies course at a university are “openly gay”? That apparently the majority of writers working on sitcoms are gay?

      One choice that people do truthfully make is to become a Christian.

      Like

      1. John,
        Much has been written about homosexual choice
        If I’m not mistaken Peter Tatchel, UK Stonewall prominent gay activist has been vociferous in defence of chosing.
        As for adultery, it is a given, that it is abhorent and prohibited in Christianity, even with those advocating SSM. Cultural Marxism, can justify removal of any and all sexual restraint. Even today I read about promotion of speciesphobia,to justify bestiality.

        Like

  5. David I’ve read the book.
    Monday evening, I bought this book, at a lecture on the Puritans, and unlike me, as a slow reader I’d finished it by the next morning.
    It is pungent book that curries Christian flavour, not favour in the church. It stings the eyes open, bringing a much needed watchman’s or wakeman’s clear trumpet call on the walls. It is a call to speak out, to contest, to be a Christian contrarian, as was CS Lewis. It is needful within the church as well as without.

    But it is a call to speak from a knowledge of western culture in which we swim as icthus fish. Like salmon we need the ability to swim in salt and fresh water, church and secular.
    It is not just for Anglicans. The RC church is also a target of cultural marxism.

    For me, of the real eye opening significance are chapters 3 and 4 which trace the main sources of cultural marxism and its development-
    1 the methodology of Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, formerly, the Institute for Marxism, then The Institute for Social Research, the goal (accord to Williams S Lind ) “was not truth but praxis or revolutionary action: bringing the current society and culture down through unremitting, destructive criticism.” Truth is locked into its own point in history, so it is historically relative.

    Comment: It is a place where biblical revisionist dwell.

    Marcuse was/is a key influence in the Frankfurt school.

    2 Kirk and Marsden admen methods in the use of propaganda:
    “It makes no difference that the ads are lies, not to us, because we are using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones:not to be bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not”
    (As David R points out and for emphasis)
    This relies on: 1 emotional manipulation
    2 Uses lies
    3 is subjective and one sided
    Personal story telling is important in this regard. The books of Ozanne and ??? (I forget her name) are examples within the church). The media is awash.

    Strategy and tactics are laid bare by Tinker. Avoidance, not answering key points, and only putting their side is endemic. Little wonder that Tinker seems to be something of anathma within some parts of the Anglican liberal church.

    I know David Robertson is a shy bairn, but he is quoted at some length in the book!

    But the book doesn’t end there. The words “and the gospel of change” are part of the front cover sub-title.
    He considers the spiritual battle, the “battle for Christ” the reality of God in Christ, in
    1 his Deity, 2 his humanity, biologically male 3 “what is in Christ, is the whole created order, made by him, sustained by him, having its goal in him (Colossians 1:16,17)
    This is in opposition to the World Council of Churches belief in God, Mother-Father Spirit” and all it’s derivative beliefs, such as the revealed in the publication of a bible entitled: “Judith Christof Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, corrected to reflect thast Christ was a woman, extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
    Key to this is biblical and systematic theology, and preaching combined with engaging with the culture, so there must be knowledge of God and of the culture, to compare and contrast, with “courageous refutation”. Perhaps in the manner of CS Lewis, a Christian contrarian.

    Like

    1. Thanks Gail….for confirming that your intolerance is such that you are prepared to ban Christianity….the irony is that you do so in the name of tolerance and claim I have no insight!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.