Kirk & Madsen, two intellectual gay activists, publish “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s,” a program of propaganda grounded in principles of psychology and advertising to force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream and silence all opposition. Conceiving their book as a “gay manifesto for the 1990s,” the authors called for homosexuals to repackage themselves as mainstream citizens demanding equal treatment, rather than as a promiscuous sexual minority seeking greater opportunity and influence.
Authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen combined psychiatric and public relations expertise in devising their strategy. Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relations consultant, argued that homosexuals must change their presentation to the heterosexual community if real success was to be made.
The first version of the Homosexual agenda psy-ops script was a 1985 article titled by its same bigoted co-authors; “The Gay Agenda“. After a homosexual war-against-heterosexuals conference in Warrenton Virginia, Kirk and Madsen further developed the psy-ops script into “Overhauling Straight America”. Then final full-blown version was titled “After the Ball….”
Here are some quotes and admissions from its homosexual extremist authors from “After the Ball…“, decide for yourself if the homosexual hate movement is following it :
- “The homosexual agenda can succeed by conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda to the nation via media (page 153)
- “Propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation that upon logic, since its goal is to bring about public change” (page 162)
- Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);
- “The Homosexual agenda can succeed by “desensitization” achieved by lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference” (page 153)
- “The Homosexual agenda can succeed by “jamming” and “confusing” adversaries, so as to block or counteract the “rewarding of prejudice” (page 153);
- “Desensitizing” is “our recipe” for converting “ambivalent skeptics”;
- “Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them” (page 221);
- “The Nazi story of “pink triangle as a symbol of victimization” should be a sufficient opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies (page 190)
- “Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235)
- “It is acceptable to call people “Homophobic” or “Homohaters” if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)
- “Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty”;
- “All sexual morality should be abolished” (pages 64 to 67)
- “All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under “clear and present danger to public order” (page 101)”
- “In time we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image (i.e., drag queens, pedophiles, etc.) (page 186); “
- “We like television because it’s the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message” (page 201)
- “Over the long-term, “television and magazines” are probably the media of choice (page 204)
- “Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207)
- “Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208)
- “Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media” (page 213)
- “Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities” (page 219)
- “The more people who appear to practice homosexuality, and the more innate it appears to be, the less abnormal and objectionable, and the more legitimate it will seem (which is why it is important to maintain claims to 10% of the population)(page 217) Note: the “10% are homosexual” hoax was created by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and they have publicly admitted it was a lie. Kirk and Madsens repetition tactic came from Hitlers Big Lie” technique referenced in Mein Kampf, all derived from communist chinese mind control tactics.
Now back to the original quote attacking religious and conservative people, and denying homosexuals have a pedophilia problem and claiming homosexuals are not trying to get age of consent laws lowered or abolished…. these are two psy-ops tactics out of Step 2 and 5 of Kirk and Madsens “Overhauling Straight America”:
 PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.
…It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.”
Now you know why homosexual pedophilia enablers and apologists downplay the homosexual pedophile epidemic or deny they are at the forefront of attacking society to lower or abolish age of consent laws. We’ll expose and document their attack on age of consent laws in another article.
Did you notice that the homosexual hate movement doesn’t say “Unacceptability” but say acceptability? I thought molesting children was always unacceptable, but apparently not the homosexual hate movement!:
“Step 5: Make the Victimizers look Bad
“At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. ….Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”
This is part of Kirk and Madsen’s “jamming” technique, an averse negative associative psychological tactic to silence opposition, giving homosexual bigots maneuvering time to criminalize opposition that they have been working feverishly to do under “anti-discrimination” and anti-bullying” laws, exactly as Kirk and Madsen Homosexual Agenda script instructs them to do.
Born Gay? Nope, and They Admit It!
What about the origin of sexual orientation? The success of the homosexual movement can be largely traced to the very idea of “orientation” itself. More precisely, homosexuals advanced their cause by arguing that they were born that way. Madsen and Kirk offer this as candid public relations advice. “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay–even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.” Alas, “To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled ‘moral choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.”
In 1986 the pro-sodomy movement lost Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the rights of individual states to criminalize sodomy. The loss was devastating. Desperate, angry, and galvanized pro-sodomy activists learned that if they could make a compelling case that they were “born gay,” they could become eligible for “Minority Status” as a “Suspect Class” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Minority Status were granted, it would force the courts to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, thus legalizing sodomy. It must be noted however, that the Civil Rights Act recognizes Minority Status only for those groups who:
- Have suffered a long history of discrimination
- Are powerless to help themselves as a community
- Are born that way
The legalization of sodomy by way of “Minority Status” is the secret to understanding why pro-sodomy activists adopted the strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” in the late 1980s and began to promote the Ulrichsian claim that people are “born gay.”
Wasting little time, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Madsen writing under the pseudonym Erastes Pill) published a follow-up to “The Gay Agenda” entitled The Overhauling of Straight America. This article, which appeared in the pro-sodomy publication Guide in November of 1987, outlined a point-by-point strategy that could be used to convince “straight America” that men and women who develop same-sex attractions “are born gay.”
In the following year, 1988, a “War Conference” of 175 leading pro-sodomy activists, representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton, Virginia. The purpose of the conference according to Kirk and Madsen was to establish an official agenda for the newly conceived “gay” movement. At this “War Conference” pro-sodomy activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” and “The Overhauling of Straight America”. The “born gay” hoax was born.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressured the American Psychiatric Association to reject homosexual reparative therapy. The NCLR claims that the “gay” identity is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan is one of the psychotherapists who served on the board of directors for this organization. Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine “The Advocate” because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she fell in love with a man…?
Further, Kate Kendall, the Director of the NCLR, who in the spirit of Ulrichs, Kirk, and Madsen argued that the so-called “gay” person was endowed with a fixed, innate, and unchangeable, “sexual orientation” and commanded the American Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of reparative therapy for all people, including those desperately looking for help. She actually wrote an article for Frontiers Magazine arguing that sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed.
Kate Kendall and Joanne Loulan stood before the American Psychiatric Association with straight faces declaring reparative therapy to be the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a black person’s skin to make them white. Then, one of these self-proclaimed “gays” went out and changed her own so-called “sexual orientation” by falling in love with a man, and the other took the time to write an article for an insiders’ magazine arguing that sexuality is changeable. Is it possible, for us to continue to trust these activists when they say that they are “born gay?”
War on Christian Morals
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to “use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.” How can this be done? “This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings. It also means exposing the inconsistency and hatred underlying antigay doctrines.”
Conservative churches, defined by the authors as “homohating” are portrayed as “antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.”
A quick review of the next 20-25 years following “The Gay Agenda” demonstrates the incredible effectiveness of this public relations advice. The agenda set out by Kirk and Madsen led to nothing less than social transformation. By portraying themselves as mainstream Americans seeking nothing but liberty and self-fulfillment, homosexuals redefined the moral equation. Issues of right and wrong were isolated as outdated, repressive, and culturally embarrassing. Instead, the assertion of “rights” became the hallmark of the public relations strategy.
Those who oppose the normalization of homosexuality have indeed been presented as backwoods, antiquated, and dangerous people, while those advancing the cause are presented as forces for light, progress, and acceptance. Conservative Christians have indeed been presented as proponents of hatred rather than as individuals driven by biblical conviction and moral integrity. The unprecedented success of this public relations strategy helps to explain why America has accepted everything from homosexual characters and plotlines in prime-time entertainment to the lack of outrage in response to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
At least we know what we are up against. Biblical Christians must continue to talk about right and wrong even when the larger world dismisses morality as an outdated concept. We must maintain marriage as a non-negotiable norm–a union of a man and a woman–even when the courts redefine marriage by fiat. At the same time, we must take into account the transformation of the American mind that is now so devastatingly evident to all who have eyes to see.
The real tragedy of After the Ball is that the great result of this is not a party, but the complete rejection of the very moral foundations which made this society possible. In order to address the most fundamental problems, we must understand the shape of the American mind. Looking back at the erosion of society since After the Ball, it all comes into frightening focus.
The homosexual revolution is but the latest and most viscerally repellent installment in an ongoing, much larger revolution that has been in the process of upending our entire civilization for many years. And it may yet succeed in doing so. The unimaginable success thus far of the homosexual revolution provides one of the most dreadful portents on the horizon today. For this revolution is far from over. And those “tolerant” citizens who think that, “Hey, I’m not gay, but they’re not harming me,” have a rude awakening coming. The militant sodomites have made it explicitly clear that tolerance is not sufficient; they demand positive “approval” from society, manifested in the enactment of laws granting them special rights, and the abolition of the residual laws that impede their full homoerotic expression and deny their full access to children. Moreover, as we shall see, they insist on the complete “conversion” of “straight” society, which involves the therapeutic cleansing of all “homophobic,” “homohating,” “anti-gay bias” attitudes.
Straight America has been asleep on a deadly battlefield with a relentless enemy that is waging total war and believes in giving no quarter. We exaggerate not. In their own words to their own troops, the apostles of perversion describe their lavender jihad as “war” and constantly invoke aggressive, military terms such as “Trojan Horse,” “deception,” “propaganda,” “war strategy,” “battle tactics,” “hand-to-hand combat,” “rage,” “fury,” “enemy,” “war conference,” “attack,” “hate,” “vilify,” “destroy,” “conquer,” “subvert,” etc.