We all know the score.
This is how the game is played.
They lie, and cooperate with lies, and become willing participants in things that are very likely to be lies, and they do it all for the greater good.
Did you hear about the infamous gay bashing birthday party RSVP from earlier this week? The story set social media on fire. Two gay dads threw a tie dye party for their 7-year-old daughter, Sophia, and invited all of the neighborhood children over to celebrate. But some anti-gay mother (probably a Christian, as countless people on Facebook and Twitter observed) declined the invitation, and she did so in the rudest way possible. Rather than simply offering a polite 'sorry, we can't make it,' she jotted down a vicious anti-gay rant, and sent it to Sophia's dads.
The note said: "Tommy will NOT attend. I do not believe in what you do and will not subject my innocent son to your "lifestyle." I'm sorry Sophia has to grow up this way."
When I first saw this story, my initial thought was: who in God's name throws tie dye parties anymore?
Then my second thought was: how long before we find out that this entire story is a hoax? I told my wife it would be two weeks. I was wrong. It took one week. A couple of days ago, the inevitable inevitably happened. We discovered that the Tale of the Anti Gay RSVP was, in fact, a complete fabrication, cooked up by a morning radio show.
Don't worry, they say they only wanted to "start a conversation."
Mission accomplished. Conversation started.
Well, it wasn't so much a 'conversation' as it was an excuse for a bunch of nincompoops to spew tired old anti-Christian and anti-conservative clich̩s Рbut I guess that's what passes for dialogue these days.
You know, I'm beginning to suspect that the folks who spread these fraudulent parables of "anti-gay bias" might be doing it on purpose.
I'm starting to suspect that these people aren't as gullible as they pretend to be.
I might be onto something.
Look at Jezebel's post on the bigoted birthday snub: Gay Dads Receive Mean, Homophobic RSVP to Their Kid's Birthday Party. The writer rants about this "mean" woman, and reports the perceived "facts" of the case. Then, in the second to last paragraph, she says this: "Of course, this note could be a fake just to get us all frothing and get this radio station's name in the news. It kind of seems fake."
She thinks it "seems fake" YET SHE SPREAD THE STORY ANYWAY.
Hey, Lindy West, if you think the story is fake, howza 'bout tossing an "allegedly" into that title? Or maybe you should, I dunno, just notintentionally reiterate an anecdote you suspect to be false.
It's called "integrity." Look into it sometime.
But the false narrative is the primary weapon in the arsenal of the progressive. Maybe it's their only weapon. In no area is this more pronounced or prevalent than in the realm of "gay rights." The gay rights movement is built on mischaracterizations, fabrications, and outright lies. They don't always come up with the lie — this one originated as nothing more than a radio station's cheap publicity stunt — but they will use it for their benefit.
As the Jezebel writer said, in a stunning admission: "But, fake or not, "Beth"'s homophobic mindset is real and common and gross. So froth away."
Translation: "I know this didn't happen, but I'm sure things like it HAVE happened, so go ahead and get all riled up about a fairy tale. I'm not interested in reality, only emotion. Use this to feed your anger at the people who disagree with our position on this topic."
This incident happens only a couple of months after a lesbian waitress in New Jersey took to the internet to complain about an anti-gay note left on a receipt. The note said: "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle." In the surprise twist ending that was neither surprising nor twisty, it eventually came out that the whole thing was a hoax. The waitress made it up.
Of course she made it up.
"I can't tip because I don't agree with your lifestyle"? Really? Why would the customer even know her "lifestyle" in the first place? As a lesbian, at what point in taking someone's food order and refilling their Cokes do you find an opportunity to inform them of your sexual affinity for other women?
But the people who reposted this garbage on their Facebook and Twitter feeds didn't bother asking that question. And the media outlets that reported it didn't bother fact checking any aspect of the story until it began to unravel on its own.
That's because the truth is irrelevant here.
It's all about the narrative. That's it.
In fact, instances of fake gay bashing and fabricated homophobic "hate crimes" are so common that I'd need to drag this on for 20 pages just to come close to listing all of the more recent cases. Here's a good one.
And another.
And another.
And another.
And another.
And another.
And another.
And another.
And another.
I'm sure, as we speak, there's yet another wannabe victim on some liberal arts campus somewhere busily planning a biased assault on themselves. And I'm just as sure that gay rights advocates will seize on their unlikely fable and use it to turn their opposition into straw men who refuse to tip lesbians.
But there's more than one way to construct a narrative. Bald faced lying is simply one strategy.
Mythologizing can be even more effective.
Right in front of our eyes, out in the open, they make men into myths.
They made a marginal, obscure, unremarkable, aging NBA benchwarmer into a "historic" sports legend. Jason Collins was morphed into Jackie Robbins — which is about as absurd as attempting to turn Billy Ripken into Babe Ruth.
As you recall, Jason Collins — in a ploy to buy himself a few more years of being drastically overpaid by the NBA — came out of the closet last year. The media erupted in applause, and everyone from Hollywood celebrities to the President of the United States of America chimed in to mark the occasion.
The stage was set for the progressive narrative.
They had their hero, now they needed to make him into a victim. Right on cue, as the new season rolled around and, shockingly, no team jumped at the opportunity to hire a bench riding media-spectacle, the gentle insinuations of "bias" began to surface. The New York Times published an article, Jason Collins, Openly Gay and Still Unsigned, Waits and Wonders. The writer pontificates: "The question Collins has to ponder is why he has not been signed as a free agent."
Uh, could it be that he's 35 and averages under 4 points a game? Could it be that teams would rather pay a younger guy less money for more production than an older guy more money for less production? Maybe. Or maybe, as the article suggests, something "sinister" is afoot. Collins, for his part, thinks that's "possible," but he wouldn't want to speculate (awfully charitable of you, Jason).
And now the NFL has become another staging ground for the gay victimhood mythology. It was inevitable. As soon as Michael Sam announced his sexual habits publicly, we knew what would come next. He'll be a victim, even if he's not. NFL teams are in a lose-lose predicament. They can draft him higher than he deserves to be drafted, and find themselves under the close scrutiny of the media and gay rights organizations who are waiting eagerly for any example of gay discrimination in the locker room or on the field. Or NFL clubs can refuse to distract their entire team for the sake of winning points with progressives by drafting an undersized, middle round defensive prospect, and be accused of "homophobia" and "bigotry" because of it.
It doesn't matter what happens next. Michael Sam will be a victim. Michael Sam will be what the narrative needs him to be. He is now another character in a fictitious drama, written and produced by agenda-driven liars and schemers.
It used to take centuries to make a man into a legend. Now it happens overnight.
Of course, no blog post about fake gay rights narratives would be complete without mentioning the Mother of All Narratives. The narrative which quickly became gospel; which became engrained in the public conscience; which led to volumes and volumes of legislation; which, quite literally, changed the course of modern history.
Matthew Shepard.
Matthew Shepard, the young gay man, brutally slaughtered 15 years ago. Murdered and tortured for being gay.
At least, that's the narrative.
The reality, though still violent and tragic, is likely quite different from the fable we've been sold. It was ten years ago that ABC ran astory debunking many of the lies surrounding the Shepard case. Their investigation found that the young man was killed by two druggies who weren't in the throes of homophobic hysteria, but rather meth-induced rage. He was killed because of drugs, not sexuality.
A sad story, for sure, but not one that's useful to the narrative.
So the reporters behind the ABC piece were attacked and vilified for their bigoted act of honest journalism, and the whole ordeal was pushed under the proverbial rug.
Until a few months ago, when an openly gay journalist named Stephen Jimenez published a book detailing the findings of his decade-long investigation into the Shepard murder. He claims that Shepard's killer was also Shepard's former gay lover, and that both men were drug addicts. The killing occurred after a drug-related dispute.
Still sad. Still terrible. But not helpful to the narrative.
Unlike the fictitious saga that swept through the nation before the police had even arrested the suspects, the revelations by Jimenez and ABC come after a thoughtful analysis of the facts. Jimenez's book cites over 100 named sources, and references information that was actually included in the initial police reports — like the fact that Shepard's killer was a known bisexual.
The Shepard story, as it's been told, is a lie.
But it's a convenient lie. A useful lie. A Lie for the Greater Good.
So it's a lie they'll keep telling. Like all of the other lies they tell.
It's not that they hate the truth — it's just that they can't find a place for it in the story.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, just make sure they are not vulgar or they will be removed.