In 1969, gay activist George Weinberg attributed an imaginary ‘phobia’ to people of any opposing view. Since then, a new term has risen on the horizon: ‘diversity’. If ‘Homophobia’ was strong language in 1969, the new-millenium-language is even stronger. This ‘diversity’ embraces everybody except, of course, the demonized and the persecuted who are not considered or defended as a part of the diversity spectrum. The flags are so big, that they can only be meant to tell others off and to be intimidating. What is this ‘Diversity’ anyway?

It is an unclear phrase meaning different things to different people, fueling motivations of all sorts. But now at the welding hands of radical activists, it is forged into coercive machinery, a shiny brass new steam engine with pistons huffing and puffing as efforts are sent off to restructure American society and to replace time-proven values.

Flags, flyers and Pride Parades flood the streets in attempts to conquer the public space. Meanwhile, shrewd sociologists and brilliant spin-doctors seek to conquer the unsuspecting mind in a million dollar effort to institutionalize the double-speak of a new era and to hail the golden calf of ‘diversity’.

1. The Diversity Delusion

In her book ‘The Diversity Delusion’ (2018), researcher Heather MacDonald argues,

“America is in crisis, from the university to the workplace. Toxic ideas first spread by higher education have undermined humanistic values, fueled intolerance, and widened divisions in our larger culture. Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton? Oppressive. American history? Tyranny. Professors correcting grammar and spelling, or employers hiring by merit? Racist and sexist. Students emerge into the working world believing that human beings are defined by their skin color, gender, and sexual preference and that oppression based on these characteristics is the American experience. Speech that challenges these campus orthodoxies is silenced with brute force.”

This book argues that the root of this problem is the belief in America’s endemic racism and sexism, a belief that has engendered a metastasizing diversity bureaucracy in society and academia. Diversity commissars denounce meritocratic standards as discriminatory, enforce hiring quotas, and teach students and adults alike to think of themselves as perpetual victims.

From #MeToo mania that blurs flirtations with criminal acts, to implicit bias and diversity compliance training that sees racism in every interaction, Heather Mac Donald argues that we are creating a nation of narrowed minds, primed for grievance and that we are putting our competitive edge at risk.

In her book, she demonstrates that there are three favorite labels with which others are increasingly stigmatized: you are either sexist, homophobic or racist. If at all possible, you are charged with being all three.

2. A historical overview

At the root of this cultural change is the birth of hippie gay-lib teach-ins in the Californian sunshine around 1969 and the radicalization that occurred within certain factions after 1996.

This ever-growing activism in small groups of extremists has come to fuel a nation-wide toxic atmosphere of tension, fear, distrust, and repulsion of dissident thought that now has remodelled tolerant Berkely University to a place where ‘naming and shaming’ reigns.

The soft-spoken flower-power of the original gay movement of the sixties and seventies where flowers were strewn over bystanders to get the message across, and a kiss to go with it, withered away as activism became a multi-million dollar industry with well-dressed policy spokespersons, successfully finishing their media-training and equipped to pour out a well-rehearsed ideology. It is almost like Jehovah’s Witness trainees go from door to door, tie, suit and all, to fulfill their preliminary mission, as ordered, before being granted admission to the grand assembly.

The lethal AIDS-epidemic of the eighties struck fear in the hearts of the activists who started dreading that society would finally give gay hedonism its lethal blow. The Empire strikes back? No, Nature strikes back! No, no! That can’t be!

And so, the two gay ideologists Kirk and Madsen advised in a 1989 pamphlet (The Gay Agenda) to stop being on the defensive and head straight forward into the attack mode. ‘Claim the victim role and don’t let go! Strike first and strike hard’, so they vehemently pointed out. To their surprise, it caught on and factions within the emancipation movement radicalized at the expense of moderates. People understood, people acted. ‘Don’t bother being a pansy and being polite!’ It struck a chord and the gay macho was born. In doing so, thought-control was born.

The first puny stone may have been thrown at the enemy at the Stonewall Gay-bar Riots in New York in1969, but in 1989 a real live Wall started getting shape nation-wide. Later on, coy lesbians would buy a Harley Davidson and get a driving license. Dykes-on-Bikes were born.

Next stage: find allies by defining a common enemy and a common uniting force. That force was genetics, the idea that genes make you different, make you a minority and make you vulnerable. And so, a bond was ideologically created with the women’s movement and the racial civil rights movement, all people who allegedly possess distinctly different genes compared to the common foe. And that foe became the non-homosexual, non-female and non-black individual: the heterosexual white male.

3. The emergence of propaganda

The propaganda works to this day. Blond, blue-eyed Trump is in for trouble. And the activists will keep on insisting that he is against gays, against women, and against blacks; otherwise, the propaganda and world-view does not work. The mantras are chanted over and over again, even though there is no proof of the allegations. The Alliance of the Self-acclaimed Oppressed who are stimulated to wallow in their victim role by Kirk and Madsen will fall apart if the glue that keeps them together, the alleged common enemy, proves not to be all that hostile at all.

It is done with flyers spread by volunteers, diversity-flags waved at parades, schools overladen with informative material, and organizations of professionals and the media being systematically infiltrated and harnessed as ‘allies’. Others are put to work to spread the world-view within their own budget. At the end of the day, the gay radicalized activists can sit back and watch the puppets dance.

4. The gay agenda

In 1989, Kirk and Madsen published the most important document that you probably never heard of, the Gay Agenda, an eleven-page activist road map and the foundation of all gay activism (download here), later expanded to make it fit for publication on Amazon as ‘After The Ball’.

On the Amazon website, we read,

“To overcome Americans’ deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and advertising specialist Madsen propose a massive media campaign, a punchy call to arms.”

Kirk and Madsen advised a set of PR rules, including

“Portray gays as victims”, “Give protectors a just cause”, “Make gays look good” and “Make the victimizers look bad”.

Extremely nasty was their PR-strategy for what they called the “Vilification of Victimizers”,

“We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task). These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique.”

For example, for a few seconds, an unctuous beady-eyed Southern Baptist preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about “those sick, abominable creatures.” While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. Intersperse it at all times with very short video-frames of the Nazi regime, lasting no longer than a split second. The effect is devastating.”

In his most recent film, radical left-wing activist Michael Moore even added six full minutes of an Adolf Hitler speech with Donald Trump sound-bytes as the voice over. It was well crafted, a way to stir the mob’s sentiments, with no need to prove a thing. In this populist approach, irrationality prevails.

K&M pulled it off. The seeds of hatred towards dissident opinion were successfully sown. And when the Amazon editor of the Sales Department says “a call to arms”, it means war, a domestic war with winners and losers.

It was Kirk and Madsen who sounded the battle alarm in the first place, not anybody else. Just like it was Hitler who invaded Poland, not the other way around. ‘If you are not with us, you are with the enemy’ is the polarizing slogan in their book. It was all or nothing.

The process of radicalization then set in. Many juveniles fell for the appealing self-sacrificial call to fight (against straights) for a better world. Or as Dale Carnegie in his 1950 best-sellers on management phrases it for those at the top: “How to be a manager? Give them a cause and then get out of the way”.

Gay youngsters internalized the K&M strategy as the way that life is, not as a cunning PR strategy. The victim-hood that was suggested has since then been internalized as a true identity. Millenniums have been raised as snowflakes, each one unique but who easily melt upon hearing an opposing view, and who hence need ‘protection’ and a ‘safe environment’.

5. An alliance is built

Within the collusion of the oppressed, the fight was expanded to fighting males (or ‘sexist patriarchal structures’ as feminist sociologists rephrase it) and to fighting whites (or ‘racist social foundations’). The collusion is basically hate-driven and tells others to shut up, but fails to look inward and do some healthy introspection. Us/them thinking is the glue to keep the brittle coalition from falling apart, and criticism is feared with the greatest of paranoia.

The tireless motor behind the collusion of the oppressed in current America is radical feminism and radical lesbian gay-lib, united in the National Center of Lesbian Rights (San Francisco) in cooperation with the more male-dominated Human Rights Campaign (New York), which is a phony name for a gay political multi-million dollar lobby-group. They have cash, therefore they have power, just like Kirk and Madsen advised in rule #6: ‘Solicit Funds’.

Not only does the NCLR propel the coalition by defining homophobia, sexism and racism, in recent years CEO Kate Kendall is also calling for the fight against ‘Islamophobia’ in an obvious effort to recruit Islamists into the alliance, a force to be reckoned with. How she can reconcile Islamic public and state ideology with homosexuality and equal gender rights, remains one of the biggest mysteries of the emancipation movement. But the potential for generating social power is clearly enormous.

6. Demonization

Kirk and Madsen advised stopping every discussion about content dead in its tracks and to instantly switch the debate or TV-interview to rights, an abstract subject.

“We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”

To achieve this demonization, they advised choosing very appealing rights, preferably ones stemming from the time-worn French Revolution of 1789: “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” (liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood)). You can never go wrong with those. And then market these slogans as though they were new products stemming from a movement of people who are giving matters a great deal of thought and who have come up with these novel contributions to further the interests of the Western debate.

The current ‘Equality Act’, pushed in the US and EU legislation by advocates or members of radical gay-lib, is an example. Who could possibly be against equality, given the French Revolution of 1789? But under the cover of this catchy slogan, activists launder far-fetched proposals, turning a deaf ear to sound criticism. To each justified objection, they react by playing the victim card.

7. Fake victims are more fun than real ones

The world of fake victims has increased ever since feminism drifted away from the homeliness of dinner table subjects in the seventies into an independent world of irrefutable ‘scientific’ dogmas in the new millennium. How do you deal with it?

It is quite simple. One can tell the difference between a real victim and a fake one by the amount of animosity it creates. If a discussion leads to a great amount of argument with participants becoming angry and saying they feel misunderstood, offended or harassed, then you are dealing with fake victims.

A discussion about real victims never gives rise to hefty debates. There is, after all, no reason for it to do so. Consensus and considerate caring about real victims is the rule, not the exception.

Here are three examples:

1. A discussion arises about the situation of pedestrians being killed in the traffic of major cities. Is there animosity about the legitimacy of the discussion? No. Diagnosis? Real victims.

2. Spanish feminists are outraged by the fact that at a crucial televised panel debate in March 2019 between the political party leaders for the 2019 Spanish elections all five leaders were men.

At the same time, we observe that 60% of all Spanish cabinet ministers are female and that 55% of all candidates for the 2019 Spanish elections across all parties are female. Feminists emphasized in the mainstream media however, the disastrous effect this TV debate exclusively between men has on young girls growing up. Many, so they claim, even switched off their TV. Animosity? Yes. Diagnosis? Fake victims.

3. A young post-doc medical doctor and feminist is asking for more public funding for scientific research into breast cancer. It is, so she says, a woman’s problem, and 1 in 7 is facing the agony. “Please donate”, so she pleas. Animosity about the legitimacy of the subject? No. Diagnosis? Real victims.

In other words, having feminist views or experiencing same-sex attractions does not automatically mean you are right, nor that you are wrong for that matter. It depends on the subject matter, the content. The substance of the issue is paramount. Gender studies denounce “heterosexual privilege”, where the majority always seems to win. We on the other hand equally denounce feminist and gay/lesbian privilege which is touted in liberal parts of the USA. A critical debate about content is called for at all times, despite being gay/feminist/black/Latino or otherwise. No privilege for me, no privilege for you.

8. The fun of animosity

Imagine old Uncle Harry coming around for the Thanksgiving dinner which you gave. And imagine niece Jane tackling him with her sophomore Yale University background. It was her chance to get even with him on certain subjects, and it really motivated Uncle Harry to retaliate for once and for all. Jane had a great time, being able to give it to him, and so did Harry, now that Jane was the one who started the argument. Boy, did it feel good, and boy was it fun. Of course, Mom had a problem to get them to stop their arguing and get to the dinner table, but it was a Thanksgiving to remember. Fake victims are more entertaining than real ones.

After all, how can you argue about Doctors Without Borders, for example? Professionals, who altruistically go abroad to attend to real victims? What is there to argue about that? The debate will last no longer than two minutes.

Real victims are all about substantial reality: cancer, Lyme disease, traffic accidents, poverty, drug-addicted parents, to name a few.

Fake victims on the other hand, are all about ideology: not enough women at a TV debate, not enough women in the benches of the parliamentary back row with nothing to influence anyway, not enough colored faces at the Oscars, and no Hispanic Transgender Female Black Re-transitioned professor at the Department of Gender Studies at Yale. There is merely an old-fashioned lesbian professor who does not even vote for Hillary. The bitch is white! (this debate is actually happening! -ed.) Such fun to debate about all this. The adrenaline flow is almost equivalent to a workout. Cool, man.

Above all, when fighting for fake victims, one does not stand with one’s boots in the inevitable mud. Advertisers in the media love a good show. The more conflict between the studio guests, the higher the viewing rates and the bigger the cash flow. By all means, fake victims are the way to go.

9. Limits

With real victims, there is a limit to the extent to which debate can be carried on. The only real reason to debate is to acquire a bigger portion of public funding with which to see into the needs of the real victims. But funding has its limits. For fake victims, however (a subject which is all about ideology), the sky is the limit. The grievances are purely in the mind. Because it is a mental phenomenon, it can certainly create many emotions and physical reactions, but it remains a topic made up of thin air. Being a fake victim is a subjective experience, being a real victim is an objective fact.

A debate over real victims does not necessarily form a threat for society, but fights for fake victims (read: ideology) endanger the social cohesion of a nation because these fights are potentially unlimited. Since fake victim-hood is not founded in reality, the proponents need not necessarily be in contact with reality. They only need to be in contact with their imagination, memories, rationalizations and childhood experiences. They can drag the hurt in their lives into every debate and can depend on primitive emotions like tribalism, revenge, and self-glorification without a system of checks and balances rooted in the real world. What is worse, they more often than not are unaware of it. In the hands of politicians and institutions, fake victim-hood is ultimately a threat to the basic freedoms of the West.

Stalin spoke of being a victim of the Class Enemy, Hitler spoke of being a victim of the Jews, people with Gender Identity Disorder speak of the harm of hearing the wrong pronoun. It is all in the mind. But when these people are in a power position, there is much to fear.

10. Conclusion

Heather MacDonald writes that America is in crisis. But it is more than that. It is above all the Democratic Party which is in crisis, ever since it allowed the ‘alliance of the oppressed’ that we described above to woo her.

This alliance stands under the leadership of fanatically, if not to say neurotically motivated members of the radicalized factions within gay-lib. They have cash, they have an infrastructure to mobilize voters, an organization with volunteers to go from door to door to endorse certain Democratic Party election candidates, and they can make or break your chances of electoral success. If you want to be elected at the level of city, state or the nation, you must openly embrace the radical gay-lib agenda. If you do not, your competitor will win the seat. The party has been hijacked.

After politics, it spreads like an autumn morning fog over the nation, first with students, then with high schools, then with elementary schools. The ‘born that way’ ideology is marketed as divine truth, and it is giving rise to the emergence of ever more social groups who would allegedly be born that way, despite the lack of scientific proof. The rainbow diversity flag is hoisted to celebrate their reality, their right to exist, and hence their right to a slice of the cake. Just as the ISIS flag waves over conquered soil, so does the rainbow-colored flag wave over a completely parallel society, losing all contact with life as it is.

Free speech that challenges these orthodoxies is first stigmatized as being homophobia. Then politicians move in and put that freedom to an end. Hopefully in time, they will begin to realize that the radical-LGBT lobby has wound them up like a music box to seek out windmills and is watching the puppets dance like a ‘troupe du ballet’ to fight for fake victims.

To be continued.

Job Berendsen, MD.