The movie homosexual activists do not want you to see


Putting strategies to work:  the homosexual propaganda campaign in American media

Link to full text

If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans — and in your own mind — about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below.  From the 1989 book, “After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s” (Penguin Books) which  immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.

Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk’s groundbreaking 1987 article, “The Overhauling of Straight America”, this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we’ve all seen and been affected by over the years — but never understood what was happening.

Kirk is a researcher in neuropsychiatry. The book describes his co-author Hunter Madsen as having received a doctorate in Politics from Harvard in 1985 and an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing, who has designed commercial advertising on Madison Avenue and served as a consultant to gay media campaigns across the country, and appears frequently on national media as an advocate for gay rights.

A founding work of the modern homosexual movement,  this book covers a wide discussion of tactics and observations relating to the homosexual movement. But the overall main psychological strategies are well summarized in a ten-page section (pp. 147-157) titled “Pushing the right buttons: halting, derailing, or reversing the ‘engine of prejudice'”.  Reprinted below, this is the meat of the book which has been re-used and referred to by the homosexual movement countless times.

Of particular note is their tactical device throughout the book of referring to religious dissenters and other critics of homosexual behavior as “bigots.” Their language is purposfully crude to enhance that idea. Much like the “big lie” theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people.

As you read this, keep in mind that it was written in 1989 — and look around to see how far the homosexual movement has gotten using these techniques.

(Note: Italics were in the original; highlights in the article are ours.)


From “After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s.” – Penguin Books, 1989  pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen


In the past, gays have tinkered ineptly with the engine of prejudice. Is it possible to tinker more favorably? We present (in order of increasing vigor and desirability) three general approaches [which are vastly better than what we’ve tried in the past].

These approaches, once understood, will lead us directly to the principles upon which a viable campaign can be erected.


From the point of view of evolution, prejudice is an alerting signal, warning tribal mammals that a potentially dangerous alien mammal is in the vicinity, and should be fought or fled. Alerting mechanisms respond to novelties in the environment, because novelties represent change from the usual, and are, therefore, potentially important.

One of two things can happen: (1) If the alerting mechanism is very strongly activated, it will produce an unendurable emotional state, forcing the tribal mammal to fight the novelty or flee it. (2) If, however, the novelty is either low-grade, or simply odd without being threatening, the alerting mechanism will be mildly activated, producing an emotional state that, if other environmental circumstances militate against it, will be too weak to motivate any actual behavioral response. In the latter case, the mammal may peer curiously at the novelty for quite some time, but will not do anything about it, or to it.

Apply this to the problem of homohatred. If gays present themselves– or allow themselves to be presented–as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized. Put more simply, if you go out of your way to be unendurable, people will try to destroy you; otherwise, they might eventually get used to you. This commonsense axiom should make it clear that living down to the stereotype, a la Gender-Bending, is a very bad idea.

We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

Of course, while sheer indifference is, itself, vastly preferable to hatred and threats, we would like to do better than that. We turn next to more difficult, but also more vigorous and rewarding, tactics.


The engine of prejudice can be made to grind to a halt not only by Desensitization, in which it is simply allowed to run out of steam, but also by the more active process of Jamming. As the name implies, Jamming involves the insertion into the engine of a pre-existing, incompatible emotional response, gridlocking its mechanism as thoroughly as though one had sprinkled fine sand into the workings of an old-fashioned pocket watch. Jamming, as an approach, is more active and aggressive than Desensitization; by the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one’s feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by any incidental, even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he’ll be of the true nature of the process–which is all to the good.

In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective — if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.


Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade or counteract the rewarding ‘pride in prejudice’ (peace, Jane Austen!) by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot, a horse’s ass, and a beater and murderer. Both Desensitization and Jamming, though extremely useful, are mere preludes to our highest –though necessarily very long-range–goal, which is Conversion.

It isn’t enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us–we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

These modes are abstract–we’ve only hinted, here and there, at how they can be harnessed and put to work for us in a practical propaganda campaign . . .




  1. Jason Nelson says:

    I think you’re concern is a little unwarranted since the authors of this book were 2 people acting independently. Not all gays are following this. I know I’m certainly not, nor have I ever read it. I do, however, think the overall principles are the same for most Americans, where we would like to live and work side by side: You a Christian there, me a gay here and disagree about a lot of things but able to share rights, laws, priveleges, and community.

  2. Allan Erickson says:

    No argument. You have every right to claim your orientation and live your life as you chose here in America. Where we part company is on the issue of gay marriage, and the effort to force the majority to violate conscience in the sanctioning of the lifestyle, even to the extent of using tax revenue to indoctrinate youth in the public school system. We would prefer living in peace. From our point of view the war was declared and is being waged by folks on your side. Seems to me civil unions are the appropriate compromise, but you must admit, given the evidence, the aim in some circles is special rights for gays, and to the extreme, even a complete repudiation of all Judeo/Christian tradition.

  3. Joe Robertson says:

    If marriage is to be strictly a religious institution, the U.S. government has no place in the marriage business. All heterosexual couples are allowed to marry in the United States, regardless of religion, ethnicity, and so on – does it seem fair, then, to discriminate against one group of people in particular? If you want to protect its sanctity, marriage as it is implemented in the United States today should be completely abolished and left to the churches. I don’t see you religious people even proposing that as a solution. Arrogance of the most disgusting type: one that allows people to disguise their bigotry and hate as tradition or “religious belief” and get away with it, virtually free of condemnation. You base your morality on a 2,000 year old book of questionable origins – one that contains moral ideas far less “good” than what your innate sense of right and wrong would be – and expect people to establish it as the law. Shame on you, and shame on the indoctrination of children into the cult of Christianity which advocates intolerance and ignorance, and is allowed to retard our progress in the name of God.

    Thank you, have a nice day.

  4. Joe Robertson says:

    By the way, I expect you won’t allow the comment to be published. Think for a moment why that would be, and tell me honestly that your own sense of morality isn’t the slightest bit conflicted by what the awful Bible is telling you to do. If you really don’t feel any guilt, you’ve probably gone insane.

  5. Joe Robertson says:

    I will not give that a response, other than to say that when you start homosexuality to bestiality, I’m afraid that your bigotry is plain for all clear-thinking individuals to see. Also, I didn’t realize that we were now able to talk to the animals and confirm their desire to marry us back. What great leaps forward we’ve made! Ironic that I’m hearing it from a teller-of-ancient-stories.

    Do pardon my rudeness, but I feel quite strongly about it as you can see. I’m sure that in many cases you would appear to be a perfectly good person.

  6. Allan Erickson says:

    Too bad you only read the first paragraph.

  7. Joe Robertson says:

    1. Same-sex marriage is alive and well in several secular societies, as well as some states. Each of those states and countries are exactly the way they were before, the only difference being the existence of same-sex married couples. Each of these states and countries also exhibits less crime, less teenage pregnancy, fewer abortions, and so on when compared with their religious, death penalty-advocating, civil rights-fighting counterparts.

    2. Same sex marriages may not be the equivalent of traditional marriage, but read my first post on your blog.

    3. It is a civil rights issue when the party in question meets every requirement other than the fact that they were born homosexual. This is something that they cannot control, and shouldn’t be made to feel inferior about.

    4. Americans also overwhelmingly go to Church. Secular societies like France, Sweden, and others are less religious and more prosperous, peaceful, and happy. There is a direct correlation between churchgoing and bigotry towards homosexuals (as there was with other issues in the past). Without religion, the world would be much more tolerant, not only when it comes to this issue.

    5. A moral alternative? What does that even mean? Morality has nothing to do with it. It’s moral to allow same-sex marriage, but no one is pushing same-sex marriage on anyone. The idea of Christian crazies that gays will teach children to be homosexual is absolutely retarded.

    6. How do you define “unnatural”? It arrived naturally, and is part of the homosexual person. It’s not a choice. The only difference between you and a homosexual is the ability to reproduce. Are priests that choose to abstain from sexual relations considered unnatural and unworthy of the same rights you have?

    As for your obviously exploitative “children argument”, the claim that homosexuals teach that “marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature” is no worse than you telling your children that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because of their sexuality.

  8. Joe Robertson says:

    Well, I’m done with you. If you can’t type a response and would rather link me to propaganda spread by the superstitious, there’s no point in arguing further. Good luck with your life of ignorance – I just hope you don’t ruin too many others.

    • Allan Erickson says:

      Pursuing the truth requires an embrace of the facts. I assumed you were interested in truth, but since you insist on ignorming facts, I wish you well.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: