Skip to comments.After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won
Posted on 06/04/2004 6:38:28 AM PDT by sauerkraut
The spectacular success of the homosexual movement stands as one of the most fascinating phenomena of our time. In less than two decades, homosexuality has moved from "the love that dares not speak its name," to the center of America's public life. The homosexual agenda has advanced even more quickly than its most ardent proponents had expected, and social change of this magnitude demands some explanation.
A partial explanation of the homosexual movement's success can be traced to the 1989 publication of After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Published with little fanfare, this book became the authoritative public relations manual for the homosexual agenda, and its authors presented the book as a distillation of public relations advice for the homosexual community. A look back at its pages is an occasion for understanding just how successful their plan was.
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.
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.
Writing just as the AIDS crisis hit its greatest momentum, the authors saw the disease as an opportunity to change the public mind. "As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care," they wrote.
Give them credit: they really did understand the operation of the public mind. Kirk and Madsen called for homosexuals to talk incessantly about homosexuality in public. "Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful; more above board," they asserted. "Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable bloc--the most modern, up-to-date citizens--accept or even practice homosexuality."
Nevertheless, not all talk about homosexuality is helpful. "And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question."
Portraying homosexuals as victims was essential to their strategy. Offering several principles for tactical advance in their cause, the authors called upon homosexuals to "portray gays as victims of circumstance and depression, not as aggressive challengers." This would be necessary, they argued, because "gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector."
Such a strategy could, they asserted, lead to something like a "conversion" of the public mind on the question of homosexuality. "The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status."
Obviously, this would mean marginalizing some members of the homosexual community. Kirk and Madsen were bold to advise a mainstreaming of the homosexual image. "In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leather-men, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-age women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays." Furthermore, "It cannot go without saying, incidentally, that groups on the farthest margins 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."
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."
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 last 15 years 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.
Other principles offered by the authors included making gays look good by identifying strategic historical figures as being hidden homosexuals, and, on the other hand, making "victimizers" look bad in the public eye. Kirk and Madsen suggested isolating conservative Christians by presenting them as "hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged." They offered a concrete example of how this strategy could be used on television and in print. "For example, for several seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is shown pounding the pulpit in rage against 'those perverted, abominable creatures.'" While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to heart-rending photos of badly beaten persons, or of gays who look decent, harmless, and likeable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating."
Public relations is now a major part of the American economy, with hundreds of millions of dollars poured into advertising strategies and image enhancement programs. Observers of the public relations world must look back with slack-jawed amazement at the phenomenal success of the approach undertaken by homosexuals over the last two decades. The advice offered by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen is nothing less than a manifesto for moral revolution. A look back at this strategy indicates just how self-consciously the homosexual movement advanced its cause by following this plan.
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. 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 After the Ball after fifteen years, it all comes into frightening focus.
A good analysis of just how successful the gay propaganda machine has been in demonizing Christian sexual morality.
"After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s"
I've never heard of this, but it sounds like the author confuses hatres of Gays with concern for what offical approval of a dysfunctional lifestyle and behaviour means for culture and society.
"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."
And the foundations which would allow this society to continue. But I suppose that's the point.
|What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda|
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)|
|Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"|
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Just waltzed in, have to pingify ASAP and will join the discussion after.
I hope all of you can read this one, it looks very important since "After the Ball" was the plan to destroy morality in the US (actually, the world) and mold the culture to not only "accept gays" but indeed, "celebrate gayness".
I, personally, refuse to accept defeat. There are new human beings born every minute. Do we want to condemn them to live in a (pardon the expression) whorehouse of sexual libertinism, with the natural family more or less destroyed?
Where there's life, there's hope.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this (very busy) pinglist.
"After the Ball" was written by a couple of radical (or mainstream, depending on definition) homosexuals. It was the blueprint, or plan, of how to "homosexualize" America. Many if not most of their ideas have come to pass. I'll try to find my summary of the book (I didn't write it, I found it on FR.) Gives an idea of the topics covered. It's guaranteed to blow your mind.
Here's the summary of "After the Ball":
(Comments are not written by me - I know it's a long read but everyone should scan this summary.)
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...
Although homosexual propaganda has been around for 50 years, the current campaign started in 1989 with a very popular book within the homosexual community called: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This very popular book within the homosexual community makes a passionate argument that homosexual activists should implement an organized propaganda campaign to change public opinion to gain public acceptance to their behavior and obtain special rights, benefits, and privileges. Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with them are bigots, haters, or ignorants, and therefore activists can and should justifiably employ any tactic possible, including mass deceit, lying, slander, maliciousness, intimidation, violence, etc. Although many activists initially condemned this approach at first in public, remaining hold outs have jumped on board after benefitting from the success of the propaganda campaign. The following are exerpts taken from After The Ball. These strategies, tactics, and techniques have been and are currently employed by most homosexual activist groups, as verified by their well documented trail.
1) 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);
2) Propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation that upon logic, since its goal is to bring about public change (page 162);
3) Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);
4) Homosexual agenda can succeed by desensitization achieved by lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference (page 153);
5) Homosexual agenda can succeed by jamming and confusing adversaries, so as to block or counteract the rewarding of prejudice (page 153);
6) Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds (page 166)
7) Desensitizing is our recipe for converting ambivalent skeptics;
8) Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them (page 221);
9) 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);
10) Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty;
11) Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
12) Jam people by pointing out that its inconsistent with the readers belief in the value of love between individuals (page 233);
13) AIDS epidemic should be exploited to increase attention and sympathy as victimized minority.(page xxv)
14) 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 (page 184);
15) Muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalization that justify religious opposition this entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections (page 179);
16) Portray opposing churches as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the time and with the latest findings of psychology (page 179);
17) Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);
18) The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (page 178);
19) All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice (page 112)
20) It is acceptible to call people Homophobic or Homohaters if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)
21) A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
22) Show others accepting gays and homosexuals (page 241);
23) Heterosexuals are like Aryans and people who are against homosexual behavior are Nazis and Clansman.
24) Homosexual persecution is identical to Jewish persecution (page 57, 62, );
25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);
26) All scientific/medical arguments to prevent 1973 APA/AMA removal from disorder list were rooted in cultural prejudice, medieval knowledge of science/medicine, and misinformation.
27) Two-thirds of all boys have rudimentary homosexual experiences (inferring most teenagers want to have homosexual sex) (page 44)
28) Vast majority of homosexuals do not engage in compulsive high-risk sex (page 49)
29) American opposition is based solely on prejudiced, outdated, and hypocritical Victorian morals (page 51)
30) All homosexually suicides are based entirely on societal rejection (page xv)
31) All sexual morality should be abolished (pages 64 to 67);
32) Homosexual civil rights are explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights;
33) Health concerns for AIDS prevention are unwarranted (page 91)
34) Opposition to homosexual marriages is based on family nostalgia and sexual guilt based on religious/Victorian values (page 92)
35) Adoption agencies have been placing kids with gay people for a long time, as long as you do not bring up the fact that your gay;
36) Kids in gay households ultimately receive better-than-average parenting (page 97)
37) All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under clear and present danger to public order (page 101)
38) All and any news or media coverage that is presents homosexual in negative form is prejudiced and invalid (page 54);
39) Everyone comes out must be prepped by a media campaign carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays (page 169);
40) Gay activists have tried to manipulate the American judicial system. Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which side step the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain rights (page 171);
41) Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert on an emotional level (page 173);
42) Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and sponsors (page 173);
43) Ambivalent skeptics are our most promising targets (page 176)
44) Associate gay cause with talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered. (page 181)
45) Project gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers (page 183);
46) Mustachioed leather men, drag queens, and bull dykes should not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations (until later after wide acceptance) (page 183);
47) Groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in the medioa campaign (page 184);
48) Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation (page 185);
49) 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);
50) Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)
51) In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the bracket technique (page 190);
52) The media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as societys victims and inviting straights to be their protectors (page 187);
53) We like television because its the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message (page 201)
54) Over the long-term, television and magazines are probably the media of choice (page 204);
55) Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207);
56) Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208);
57) Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media (page 213);
58) Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities (page 219);
59) 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)
60) Stage candid interviews with gays who appear as solid citizens. Subjects in commercials should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers (for now) (page 247);
61) Most people derive their impressions of the world through the national media (page 250);
62) It will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormentors, we cannot waste our resources on revenge alone (page 189);
63) Too many Americans share this mistrust of gay citizens (page 55);
It is so outrageous and evil what homosexual activists are up to, one does not know where to start. One does not know who to feel sorriest and embarrassed for: the "ambivalent skeptic" who could care less if they were being desensitized, manipulated, and used; reporters and media officials who fail to expose such fraud and fail in their jobs as public care takers of the truth; public officials who are afraid to stand up to these activists out of fear of reprisal; the parents of the children who are apathetic and indifferent and allow their children to be desensitized, manipulated, and reprogrammed; or the homosexual activists who preach of gays having virtue and honesty while actively participating in on-going hate campaigns. Does the ends justify the means? Should any group in society be able to get away with such audacity and corruptness?
Great minds think alike - I just posted the summary of "After the Ball"!
Its always hard to find this info when we need it.
Thank you, sir!!
I will bookmark and copy parts of this thread. I used to have it a couple places on my desktop.
I think this is worth reading. Ping.
Completely outrageous. Embarrassed and sorry for many of those mentioned. But angry at those who just blindly go along with the activism du jour, the 'worthy' cause, fighting for a victim who isn't a victim at all. Because they've been fooled. They used to know better and have allowed themselves to be fooled and now try to 'educate' us all. I'm referring specifically to folks in the media, on TV (the View and others) and education systems who allow themselves to be fooled and involved in the activism because it makes them feel good and important, even referring to the moment when they became 'enlightened' to this 'plight', as they may have had reservations in the past. Sigh.
Those promoting homosexuality as normal and natural, and promoting the viewpoint that homosexuals are victims, use guilt and fear to browbeat a spineless public into submission. The promoters aren't even necessarily homosexuals themselves; it has been adopted by the left as a pet cause (various reasons why). In schools, workplaces, families, governemnt - those who do not accept homosexual behavior as benign, and don't want the "gay" agenda shoved down their throats, are pressured, intimidated, sneered at, threatened, punished - the list is endless.
To stand up against the "gay" agenda even just by the simple words "I don't agree with this" is often to be the object of ridicule, punishment, ostracism, or worse.
But it's worth it, anything's worth it, to stand up for truth.
manc.. this is a thread about the book I told you about.