If there were any doubts that the long-term strategy devised by homosexual activists in 1988 to normalise acceptance and support for their agenda has triumphed in the United States, the case of Brendan Eich has dispelled them.
In 2008, Eich was one of 6,470 American citizens who donated more than $1,000 to support Proposition 8, a ballot to change the California constitution to confine marriage to one man and one woman, thus undoing the legislature’s sanctioning of same-sex marriage. The proposal won narrowly at the state election and has since been the subject of court appeals at state and federal levels, and was recently disallowed as unconstitutional. So much for a democratic outcome.
When Eich became Mozilla CEO this year, his donation was discovered, and a Twitter campaign by online dating site Okay Cupid used a filter to indicate whether visitors were using Firefox, and urged clients to “consider using different software for accessing Okay Cupid”. Such was the reaction that Brendan Eich was forced to resign.
Public comment focused on whether the campaign against Eich amounted to a breach of freedom of speech, prompted by intolerance on the part of homosexuals towards defenders of traditional marriage, which would be a sick irony, given their longstanding plea for tolerance for themselves. Some homosexual spokespersons have even said as much, although questions have been raised about their sincerity.
In 1988, leading homosexual activists met at a conference in Virginia to map out their campaign. Two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, published their public relations plan, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Its implementation is an example of sophisticated marketing strategy.
First came replacing the word homosexual with the word gay, with all its happy connotations, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt the new terminology.
Then came desensitising the public, by flooding the media with gay-related advertising, in the least offensive form possible.
After that followed the silencing of dissenting opinion.
Kirk and Madsen spelled how this should proceed. They wrote: “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. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation).
“Our goal here is two-fold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”
The most recent tactic has been to demonise Christian groups offering counselling for people who are trying to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, by convincing the media that helping someone become heterosexual is tantamount to an act of violence against homosexual men.
In this way opponents of the homosexual movement are established in the public mind as bigots who deserve to be rejected for their prejudice against homosexuals. By contrast, a straight guy socialising with homosexuals in good fellowship is seen as uber-normal and unexceptional.
This emotional manipulation of the public through sophisticated public relations strategies has been analysed by David Kupelian, in his exposé study, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom (2005).
Kupelian described the authors of After the Ball as follows: “Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys — very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.”
He detailed the inception and rolling-out strategy of the homosexual movement’s agenda, for both the U.S. and Australia — the language employed, the moral high ground assumed, and the coercive measures to be employed once the proponents of a homosexual agenda attained the upper hand.
So when some voices from the homosexual movement defended Brendan Eich’s right to freedom of speech, what did they really mean?
A quick scan of the internet — avoiding Firefox, of course — revealed some convoluted reasoning. Mary Hamilton, a columnist in Britain’s left-liberal daily paper, The Guardian, accepts that Eich has a right to fight gay rights and concedes that he has never let his political feelings on the issue influence his work practices with staff, but maintains that he has no right to remain CEO of Mozilla, as this would fracture “the goodwill of the people it relies upon”.
Eich has not even apologised, complains Hamilton, and is “grasping all of the rights” of freedom of speech, “with none of the responsibilities”. She quotes Eich’s former colleague, Erin Kissane, saying that he and his fellow employees “do not want to work with or for someone who has actively worked to hurt them, their friends and their families”.
Hamilton goes on to say that no-one is trying to restrict Eich’s freedom of speech, but that he is merely facing the consequences of holding such opinions in his role of CEO.
She writes: “He could not lead Mozilla in the way Mozilla needs and wants to be led. I’m sure he will have many other opportunities elsewhere and I wish him well. I also hope that he never again has the opportunity to actively assist in the oppression of LGBT people, and that if he does have it, he decides this time that the consequences just aren’t worth it.”
Behind these weasel words, one can almost hear George Orwell’s thought police battering at the door.
The strategy of homosexual activists in the U.S. has also been to conflate the battle for what are claimed to be homosexual rights with the Negro Civil Rights Movement, and to attempt to share in its moral legitimacy. Their opponents are on the “wrong side of history”, implying also the inevitability of the success of their just cause. U.S. Republican right-winger Barry Goldwater’s later repentance after opposing civil rights in 1964, and his subsequent support for “pro-choice” abortion law and homosexual rights, are cited as a warning of the political cost of resisting the inevitable.
“Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command, the old world is rapidly changing….”. Bob Dylan’s civil rights era lyrics are also eerily true of the rapid acceptance by the young and unthinking of the seductive messages of homosexual rights, and especially of “marriage equality”.
I have heard teenage girls cooing as wistfully over blatant intimacy depicted onscreen between young teenage men, as they would over a cute baby. A key element in the success of the homosexual movement’s strategy has been its challenge to traditional norms, such as the old world values of family life and long-term commitment. It is an emotive rather than rational response, but completely in tune with the instincts exploited in a consumerist society.
If we in Australia believe we have escaped the left-wing curbing of our free speech, where any serious critique of the homosexual agenda or of the exploitation of indigenous Australians by some of their own leaders has been stifled, we should think again.
Not even the Catholic Church dares to suggest that most so-called “paedophile priests” were men with homosexual tendencies, preying on adolescent boys in preference to girls.
Cory Bernardi, the South Australian Liberal senator addicted to telling the truth, is banished to the back-bench, while an army officer finds his career threatened for speaking out against promotion of a homosexual identity in the Australian Defence Force.
Attorney-General George Brandis struggles to repair the breach created by one judge’s interpretation of the Racial Discrimination Act and finding against journalist Andrew Bolt and Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper, and is consequently accused of endorsing hate speech.
Brendan Eich deserves our sympathy in this case; but we should also wake up to how far Western public opinion has been manipulated and duped and the scope of free expression radically diminished.
Free speech certainly appears to have been severely curtailed in what was once the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
John Morrissey is a Melbourne-based writer.
Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill (aka Hunter Madsen), “The overhauling of straight America”, Guide Magazine, November 1987, reproduced in “Strategies of the homosexual movement”, MassResistance (Waltham, Massachusetts).
Extract from Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (Penguin Books, 1989), pp.147-157, reproduced in “The homosexual propaganda campaign in America’s media”, MassResistance (Waltham, Massachusetts).
David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom (Medford, Oregon: WND Books, 2005).
David Kupelian, “How ‘gay rights’ is being sold to America”, WorldNetDaily, October 10, 2005.
Mary Hamilton, “Brendan Eich has the right to fight gay rights, but not to be Mozilla’s CEO”, The Guardian (UK), April 7, 2014.
Life in America after the ball is over
Major gay rights organisations wage endless war against perceived enemies to avoid having to deal with the truthful message: gay culture is screwed up. Gay leaders screwed up. Gay people are suffering because of gay people.
At every turn, the show must go on. In the face of overwhelming evidence that things are going badly for gay people — there’s HIV, suicides caused by romantic cruelty from other gays, intimate partner violence, eating disorders, high addiction rates, high divorce rates, rampant sexual assault, syphilis, emotional abuse — personal interest stories are trotted out to distract people from unflattering statistics from the Urban Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, while the public is pounded over the head with comparatively unimportant, and in any case shoddy, statistics showing that kids with gay parents get okay grades in school and have acceptable levels of self-esteem. (So it’s okay to rip them away from one of their biological parents forever?)
The ball must come to an end at some point, but it is hard to predict when that will happen.
As the play-acting starts to lose its grip on the audience, the gay agitators react with panic and ever-mounting levels of libel. They have to keep everyone on the defensive to distract from the disasters that gay leaders have overseen in their community and done far too little to thwart, obsessed as they were with the symbolic question of marriage and the misconceived project of normalising gay adoption.
If the ball isn’t over yet, it is about to end. We have to get busy cleaning up the aftermath.
Extract from Robert Oscar Lopez, “Gays gone wild: Life in America after the ball is over”, American Thinker, May 12, 2014.