I came across this article and while I was reading it, it dawned on me what all this hullabaloo about homosexuality really is about. I have always wondered, how come ten years ago there was not as much hysteria around homosexuality as there is now. Does it mean that there were no homosexuals in the past? A quick search revealed that homosexuality has been present in virtually every society since the ancient times. So why the sudden hysteria in the past couple years? Its not that homosexuals have increased in number, like the media would have us believe, its that the media is acting as an agent to creating illusions and misperceptions. The sad bit about this, is that its this new reality that then increases the number of homosexuals and it becomes a recurring cycle. This is the classic divide and rule script. Step 1 invade your subjects territory. Step 2 create confusion by creating illusions. Step 3 make sure your subjects stay fearful and suspicious of each other. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about divide and rule

Elements of this technique involve:
creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign
aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign
fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers

Reading this Nation article made me realize what I have suspected all along. The gay people are just pawns in this game, they are in essence being used to attain bigger goals. For capitalism to thrive, there must be non cooperation and mistrust among the subjects. This is not to say that there are no genuine homosexuals, the point is their cause has been hijacked, and they are just being used as pawns. This divide and rule strategy has worked since the days of slavery and can be widely seen at work among the African Americans. There used to be unity among them but about 10 to 15 years ago they have slowly degenerated to outright contempt for each other. It started out with the men vs women battle which soon became the white women vs black women battle. This is the era when media portrayed African American men as preferring and marrying white women than African American women, this is the era when that famous magazine response was written to the white woman for taunting AA women about taking their men. Anyways marriage statistics and research showed that majority of AA men actually marry AA women, but the damage had already been done, and to this day that misperception still exists. Next the media embarked on portraying AA men as being on the down low, and once again there was hysteria with even Oprah joining in to the circus. Once again, its not that men on the down low do not exist, the question is what percentage are they? Is it a significant number? And most importantly, why the mass hysteria now? Did they not exist in the past? Classic divide and rule was at play once again to the point that apprehension and suspicion so big has been created between AA men and women, that if you go into the inner ghettoes, there is no concept of relationships leave alone marriage. And guess what? Divide and rule is now being introduced slowly in Africa, same game different cast. My biggest worry is that Africans will be reactive rather than proactive, and by the time Africans realize what is going on, it may be too late. Ask yourself, what is the objective of this Nation article and the numerous books on homosexuality, and the numerous "celebrities" who come on our screens to tell us they are gay? You may not care about what they have to say, but guess what, you are not the target audience. The target audience are the young people and your children, the seeds of hate and suspicion are being sown in them such that 20 years from now African youth will have caught up with their AA counterparts in being suspicious of the opposite sex. Divide and conquer has been effectively used for millennia, but the sad part is we never realize that its being used until after the desired results have long been accomplished. Here is the Willie Lynch letter
http://www.finalcall.com...Making_of_a_Slave.shtml

And here is the Nation article. The purpose of this article and many others is to invoke fear and distrust among the women about their male spouses, which will culminate after multiple amounts of conditioning, into outright hate for the menfolk. Who is the big winner after all this? Capitalism!


http://mobile.nation.co....ml/-/phy7a/-/index.html

You mean areas like religion?

@Nabwire, I can agree with you that Capitalism stands to gain in this homosexual 'campaign' by virtue of increasing individual rights across the globe. Isn't this a good thing?

But am finding it difficult to believe that the Capitalist system can thrive with increased mistrust and broken families. Certainly increased mistrust and broken families must follow the path of increased individual rights, but isn't it a temporary phase that will be replaced by a 'new social order'? And won't this emerging social order undermine Capitalism?

I don't like your recommendation to women and all of us in general about ditching the TV set for business magazines. Personally I don't watch TV, but neither do I think business magazines can be of much help in liberating my mind and soul for whatever that's on TV is a product or runs along the ideas on the magazines. That is, your recommendations are still reactive.

But what is your objective? I think you are trying to find balance within yourself in a world that's 'full of turmoil' just like I'm trying to do and you want to engage in a conversation that will clarify matters. I like that.

Here I am. If you don't mind.

Tycho you missed my point, any Econ class will clarify to you that Capitalism thrives in broken up homes rather than intact ones.
About the magazines, atleast you will stand to learn something from business magazines, you will learn hardly anything in fashion magazines, just a lot of gossip and idolizing fellow human beings. But I should clarify that I don't watch tv coz I'm busy right now, when I get more time I would watch but selectively. Shark tank is more educational than say Keeping up with the Kardashians. Yes they are reactive recommendations, but they are a baby step away from the norm.
My objective? Just to shake people out of the stupor created through hours of programming courtesy of the idiot box.
Yoursmile, my point exactly, perception is reality!

Wewe Tycho acha siasa mingi, just explain to me how Capitalism builds the family. Unless nilisomea kwa dirisha, Capitalism would rather have a broken home, that way instead of one home for father mother and three children, there are two different homes for father and mother, then after some years three different homes for children. Instead of having one house, the economy now has five houses, multiply that by hundreds of thousands of people and you see how the capitalist economy stands to gain from confusion.
You are confusing the capitalist system and the serfs in the system, the former stands to gain from confusion while the latter is just a supplier of labor, from whom the assets necessary to advance one in a capitalist system, he is denied.
This is not an attack on capitalism, its just an explanation of how the system works, so that as a wazuan is aimlessly watching tv, they know what caste in society they are putting themselves in. Capitalism is great, only if you know how the game is played, otherwise it sucks.
Hahaha what makes you think I haven't awoken yet? Would I write this if I was in the lull that majority are in?

One rule of the political game is that the distribution of knowledge determines the distribution of power and how power is used. Now more than in the past perhaps, knowledge is becoming more evenly distributed and contention over authority is rising. This is a check against the rise of dystopia. Seeing the dystopia rising is changing it in fact.