Brian Clowes, noted Catholic commentator, contributor to The American Spectator, and top exec with Human Life International, published an annoyingly hand-me-down expose on the “gay agenda” this week, trotting out, like so many angry anti-gays before him, the gay rights manifesto After The Ball as a kind of gay Protocols of the Elders of Zion. From Clowe’s essay at LifeSiteNews:
… Homophile strategists are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:
- Exploit the “victim” status;
- Use the sympathetic media;
- Confuse and neutralize the churches;
- Slander and stereotype Christians;
- Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
- Intimidation.
… Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen clearly laid out this agenda in the marching orders of the movement, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.[1] This volume is an absolute treasure chest of information for those pro-family stalwarts who are actively engaged against the homosexual rights agenda.
By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square …
Just for the record: I have never read After The Ball, and I’ve never heard it discussed by actual gay people. Only by gay-obsessed bigots like Brian Clowes.
Meanwhile, I wonder if Clowes is sufficiently self-aware to note the irony in accusing LGBTfolk of claiming “hiding their true nature,” claiming “victim status,” and especially of “slandering and stereotyping Christians.” Virtually every piece of anti-gay legislation to be passed in the United States in the last decade has squeaked through the polls by “hiding its true nature” beneath tricky legalese. And if that’s a stretch, Clowes should at least realize that his entire career, at this point, consists of pleading special “victim” status for conservative religionists, and of “slandering and stereotyping” gay people. Why, in this very piece Clowes writes:
[Homosexual activists] have lulled people into thinking that the wider society will not be adversely affected by their radical social agenda. Homosexual strategists have, in many cases, toned down their extreme rhetoric and have cloaked their agenda in soothing language.
… engaging, in other words, in a massive conspiracy. Apparently, Clowes doesn’t object to stereotype and slander in general, but only to stereotyping and slander against those with whom he happens to agree.
