Pride is different.

Historical perspectives on propaganda show that the end goal s compliance with the revolution.

First, I highlight the role of claims and complacency:

"Years ago ... you'd often hear their activists say, 'Why are you opposed to gay rights? This won't impact your life in any way'. Of course, they don't even try to say that anymore ... There are no longer calls for tolerance, but compliance."

Psychiatrist Emanuel Tanya observed that in the 30s, very few Germans were true Nazis. They simply let Hitler get on with it while they lived busy lives. This complacency was facilitated by years of propaganda which had not been countered. Sadly, the propaganda worked; the public was duped and a world war followed.

The brilliance of After the Ball

Now we have another propaganda campaign claiming that LGBTQ equals the new black; people are "born gay", and once gay, always gay (other orientations have since emerged but the principles have not changed).

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's seminal After the Ball (1989) lays out a sophisticated strategy. For Kirk and Madsen, social conservatives are to be portrayed as the new KKK, 'nasty', 'poisonous', 'ranting homohaters'. Those who realize the set-up remain mute because correcting the narrative is too mammoth a task, unappealing and costly.

How psychological conditioning works

Various factors coalesce in this process, including the following:

First, there are linguistic make-overs and social and verbal engineering - mainstream media and 'progressive' entities are vital players here.

Tellingly, Kirk and Madsen write in their book, "In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual [sic] behaviour 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."

Sound familiar?

Secondly, there is a focus on children and young people, their grooming, re-education and 'enlightenment', much of it kept from neanderthal parents. Mandatory RSHE (Relationship, Sex and Health Education) is key here as LGBT content is frequently found in standard curricula. The push for Drag Queen Story Hours is another feature.

Thirdly, trusted, authoritative social and religious leaders say little, and appear unaware or complacent. If they are not concerned, the rest of us can relax and ignore those irritating, exaggerating whistle-blowers.

And finally, there is the persecution of dissent and effective deterrence of others. Those brave enough to protest (still) are hung out to dry alone.

Where is the voice of the 'prophetic' evangelical church?

Though happy exceptions exist, where are Christian leaders who publicly engage with this revolution?

They say they love Jesus, but what about his teachings on sex and gender, and what about the more fundamental freedoms to speak them in public? Other contemporary issues are avidly addressed, but here ...?

They will not expose the fraudulent claims and revolutionary goals of Pride, a key reason for their silence, in my view. That some engage with 'gay evangelicals' but not ex-gay evangelicals is striking, but more on that next time.

No sitting this one out

Sadly, the Church mostly appears Woke, pietist or clueless. Some have signed on to Woke while others believe God or another personal evangelism course will sort things. Many think (hope?) they can just keep out of it, like the duped Germans decades ago.

Oddly, many who 'get it' are agnostics, also Muslims, who ask me, 'What's happened to the Christians?'

I will return to this question in Pride Part Two but suffice for now to say that much of the Church seems to be asleep at the wheel.

Dr Lisa Nolland is CEO of the Marriage Sex and Culture Group, London.