RADICALISATION
MECHANICS
My theory: the progressive left don’t make everyone more left-wing, they make some people more right-wing, and the right-wing don’t make everyone more right-wing, they make some people more left-wing!
The traditional idea is that cult leaders procure its followers by seducing them with propaganda: preying on the disenfranchised and honing in on areas in which they may feel alienated, vulnerable or unheard, and offering them an attractive alternative (on the left, a tearing down of the traditions that are cited as the reason for feeling this disenfranchisement and alienation, and on the right, a return to traditions of yore, the loss of which are cited as the reason for feeling confusion). Both do in fact have some valid points to make. But the problem is that in such cases of radicalisation, it goes too far to the extreme and fanatical end. Cult mentality takes hold. Followers lured in by the promise of a better world and indoctrinated with an ideology that has a few sensical ideas making it seem rational, but mixed in with ideas which are highly dangerous, which the disenfranchised and vulnerable person does not distinguish between. This is a commonly seen way that individuals are enlisted into dubious cults. But from my observations, currently radicalisation is often happening also in the REVERSE, whereby political radicals of the left or right are so EXTREME (and also misinformed, sometimes willingly) that they are off-putting. They alienate huge swathes of society who can see the holes in the radicals’ logic, which the radicals refuse to acknowledge having become stubborn and religious in their thinking. People whom feel lectured to by one side are turned-off and either disengage, or in the case of radicalisation, join the OPPOSING side!
It’s simply most people’s instinctual nature that they will REBEL against lecturing, which evokes unconscious feelings of being threatened with unwelcome assertions of dominance and authority. Since most people seek to be surrounded by like-minded or at least respectful people, they flee for safety in numbers in the face of potential ostracisation.
The aggressive tactics of extreme radicals on both sides do procure some followers whom feel they have found an exciting group to finally become part of — whether marginalised gender dissidents joining the queer movement, or disenfranchised heterosexual men whom feel shunned by or frustrated with women turning to antifeminist alt-right movements etc.
On the positive side, I would say in most cases the radicals procure sympathisers rather than true fanatics. For example, there is a nuance between those whom oppose the LGBTQ+ because of the dogma yet still support gays, lesbians and trans people, and out and out homophobes/transphobes. However, though the radicals are the minority, they are certainly loud enough to cause huge confusion, conflict and upheaval in general society.
Radical social activists are difficult to challenge, because they assert that they are operating on the morally virtuous grounds of attempting to liberate and protect vulnerable people, which implies that your disagreeing with them or questioning their tactics must be because you are bigoted, homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist, conflating people whom are merely questioning things, with people whom are genuinely transphobic, racist, homophobic, sexist etc. Furthermore, you will be accused of being "internally" transphobic or racist even if you are trans or PoC yourself! This intolerance is extremely dangerous, because it shuts down questions and challenges, which are surely necessary to maintain the health of the movement and check it is operating in the most optimal and ethical way. This dislike of questioning which we see in social activist groups is not dissimilar to the dogma of organised religion. That people don’t want to be vindicated as transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic etc suggests that people do think such things are bad. Their voice becomes trapped because they fear slander and mischaracterisation. They want to speak openly on an issue but don't want to be called phobic or sit, as most of us don't, as I believe most people do have moral values and the want to be moral in tact. This feeling of suffocation people harbour right now because of the suppression of speech (which furthermore gets labelled as "hyperbole" and "exaggeration" and "PC-gone-mad rhetoric", which I see as a form of gaslighting) in modern times has contributed to the volatility of the landscape in political thought/opinion as well as general culture right now.
If an ideology is serious about its aims, constructive critique should be absolutely welcomed as upkeep and something that keeps the movement strong and robust. Shouting at someone as being “mean, nasty, problematic!" because they pointed out the wooden beams of your roof are mouldy for example, rather than addressing the issue for practical health reasons, is gonna mean either your roof is is going to cave in or you’re going to fall seriously ill.
Ironically, and perhaps disturbingly, it’s those leaning more towards the right-wing (traditionally reticent to accept the new in favour of conserving the established status quo) whom seem more open to discussion. Ben Shapiro was extremely open to hearing the perspectives of republican transgender YouTuber Blaire White, in many parts due to her logic and diplomacy, a fresh contrast to the histrionic ways of other queer activists.
Zealous followers become aggressive mouthpieces for the movement, whom in an unthinking, robotic style merely parrot the ideology and mantras of their rulers, and because they are no longer thinking for themselves having learned the ideology by wrote and simply regurgitate it, they lose their critical thinking skills. It’s like when you stop WORKING OUT and lose all your MUSCLE!
I feel most people don’t go as far as joining the other just-as-extreme side however, but they do disengage and lose sympathy.
I imagine some left-wing activists may proclaim "excuse me why are you blaming US???? We’re trying to HELP and SAVE people!!!" But whatever noble intentions you may have, here I am simply presenting the mechanics of what's happening: that the intended "help" seems to be doing precisely the opposite. That old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" rings true……..
CONSERVATIVE RESPONSIBILITY
Right-wingers may also think it’s just crazy left-wingers and LGBTQ+ people being out of their minds. But what they have failed to admit or reflect upon, is that these radical leftist activists are a product of the hybrid conservative-capitalist society, which for some individuals whom do not fit traditional models, are stifling and repressive. Take the roles of “man” and “woman” being too rigid and therefore repressive of any desires people have outside what’s traditionally deemed appropriate for men and for women, for example. Some people who don’t fit in to traditional maleness or femaleness feel confusion and alienation from their bodies and the ascribed cultural notions upon them, causing them to rebel and seek alternative lifestyles. If these queer people were happy in society, an uprising would never have happened in the first place. So conservatives, yes must take some responsibility in looking at the robustness of the society that traditional ideology constructs and maintains, as clearly these pesky queers as you see them have wrought great upheaval! There is a reason, however misguided, for their rebellion. The old problem of Christianity preaching love, but the hateful and zealous extremists hijacking it, becomes evident here (also rather similar to leftist activists preaching love and tolerance but behaving in hateful ways). I see the Christian religion as a great forum of faith, peace and humanity, but Christians must monitor the more outrageous Christian voices hijacking it into a divisive movement of hate. The right-wing also become just as snowflake-y and offended as they accuse the left of being (just as they were the ones to originally be offended). It’s almost like the political sphere has gone through a SEX CHANGE. Now the left is offended and prudish, and the right wants to be outlandish, chaotic, and ironically, liberal.
Conservatives whom are horrified by what is happening, must ask themselves, what conditions have they created for the irrationality of queer progressives to explode in this way? I personally see a great failure of education and paying attention to the social health of society, and if conservatives are unhappy with recent social phenomenas they must look to their own complacency in not scrutinising why its peoples would want to drive away from traditional mode of living. Conservatives whom may be reading this may think "euurgh silly bitch it’s obviuosly LIBTARDS and DEMOCRATS brainwashing people hollywood paedos" etc etc.
But if conservative America was so robust and successful a system, marginalised LGBTQ+ individuals would have never been seduced by the irrationality of gender theory in the first place.
ADVICE FOR ACTIVISTS
With the fanatical behaviours of far left and right activists, you start to question, do these people actually want to help people, or do they lose sight of their progressive mission, drunk on the THRILLINGNESS OF THE FIGHT? It is something that neither the left or the right have thus far admitted to or even contemplated — that their very own methods and lack of strategy turn people into precisely the thing they abhor.
I feel what is needed is for activists in particular to try and emphasise their critical thinking skills. Only by talking about (and admitting to) uncomfortable issues can progress be made. Right now, the left make topics taboo to talk about under the guise of protecting marginalised identities. (For example, that a high amount of violent crime committed by black people in deprived inner city areas does exist, but the left don’t realise that talking about this shouldn’t even vindicate them, because the phenomena of violent crime by black people in the inner city are precisely the product of institutional racism, and blacks being socialised into deprived areas. The left’s denial of what others can plainly see, therefore creates skepticism over the legitimacy of supporting such movements as Black Lives Matter. It also stunts any true progress that is not tainted with deceit, which could have unexpectedly insidious effects. Denying the holes in your argument that others can plainly see, makes your argument weak, because the political adversary will use that as the weak spot to bring your argument down. This I would argue radicalises people against supporting issues of race for example.
Each ideological faction does have valid points to make, and obviously they feel the way they do for a reason. But the lack of decorum and bad ettiquette of mud-slinging INFLAMES what are originally valid concerns into toxic destructiveness. People have become blinded by anger. Though impassioned, angry speeches can have their virtue and anger can be a great catalyst — in this highly saturated ADD-assault-of-images-and-media-on-the-senses-constantly culture, I feel it is a technique far too much in excess, and contributing to an overload of noise.
VISIBILITY HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT; DRAG BANS ETC.
In light of the recent drag bans in America, and the revoking of certain trans rights, I do speculate that it directly correlates with the left’s ill-considered aim for "visibility" in the media, rather than purely the resistance and intolerance of conservatives and TERFs as the radical left would cite. Before the insatiable and haphazardly embarked upon quest for visibility, many conservatives would simply be uninterested and not invested in the alternative lifestyles of queer people. Trans pop singer Kim Petras was able to transition at just 14 years old.
I do speculate that some queer activists — in their regular appearances on TV stations — were seduced by the prospect of great fame for their heroism, which I do feel may have blighted trans people’s road to acceptance and thriving, whom were far more discreet.
Visibility can be extremely useful, especially when it is positive visibility, which can change the destiny of minority identities whom have been unfairly maligned and are targets of vilification, mocking and abuse. But LGBTQ+ visibility as it has been handled in the past decade, has come in tandem with radical activists charging in with extremely dubious ideas taken from gender theory, furthermore with a tone that is aggressive and lecturing. This has alienated the public, whom can see the incoherence of the gender theory that queer leftists espouse (for example, all at once arguing gender does not exist, yet wholeheartedly supporting transgenderism, which by definition means to go from one gender to the other, and insinuates that gender does in fact exist. The radical left continue calling the criticisms that they are suppressing free speech PC-gone-mad-rhetoric, all the while people’s anger over feeling repressed burgeons: phenomenas such as TERFs are invariably what you get in the left’s refusal to have an honest conversation. When you repress the leaky damn in one area — the violent flood is going to burst forth with an even greater fury. People feel suffocated and repressed and therefore full of volatile pent up energy wanting to explode! And yes many of the TERF ideas are irrational (just as many of the progressive left’s are) — but this is what happens when people feel suffocated. They do not behave rationally. The visibility quest in fact has less made queers seen in a positive light, and more made them an open target for hatred, having accrued the gazes of the intolerant and revealed their plans to them, possibly putting them in a culturally vulnerable state.
In battle, one should leave nothing to chance. Strategy is of upmost importance.
Though I don’t want to be vindicating, I do feel privileged queers whom study gender theory and (the accepted) feminist literature at the top institutions with their mantras like "let’s destroy the gender binary!" "Masculinity and femininity are fake constructs!" and "end masculinity!" have not only hijacked the important transgender cause, but turned people against it. Why would mainstream society, whom seem to quite enjoy being plain old "cis" men and "cis" women, accept the mission of outsiders to "destroy the gender binary"? It shows the problem of our ignorance of history, if only the radical left considered the nature of religious war where either side are so convicted in their beliefs that neither will relent, that has raged for centuries. The attempt of outsiders to change the traditions of a culture that are in place to helps its peoples feel grounded and safe, is always met with an ugly outcome of battle (and resentment depending on who wins the cultural war). Whoever the winner is by virtue of sheer force and violence will leave those deafeated resentful and planning to return to bring the new status-quo's downfall.....
This aspect of queer activism goes beyond advocating for their own rights, and does impinge on the rights of others, whom may enjoy traditional setups of gender roles. Before this, trans people merely wanted to be accepted and allowed to live without the threat of violence and ridicule. I don’t think trans people — before gender theory exploded into the zeitgeist and talked on behalf of them — EVER wanted to "destroy the gender binary" or claimed "masculinity and femininity are arbitrary fictions!". You only have to observe that trans people on hormone therapy become very archetypically "male" if on testosterone (stubble, squared jawline, increased sex drive) or "female" (emotional, reduced sex drive, curved features) if on oestrogen, showing that there ARE aspects of "gender stereotypes" which have a biological rudiment — completely disproving the foolish "gender is a social construct" idea from out-of-touch academics. What I see specifically happening here, is issues affecting genderqueer people of the upper class that make them feel disillusioned, go on to construct ways of dealing with this disillusionment in humanities departments and arts schools, via exploring their alienation with gender roles in an intellectual manner, and then becoming passionate about such things as gender theory. In their enthusiasm for finding something that they feel explains their sense of alienation in the realm of gender, they then advocate it as something that can help all gender dissidents, not realising the issues facing trans people in deprived areas for example are extremely different to "queer" people of the upper class. Queer people of the upper class may face alienation and confusion certainly, but trans people in deprived inner city areas face violence, attack, murder. I do feel upper class queers should have taken into account, despite their valid qualms with stifling gender roles, enjoy a comparatively affluent lifestyle. Unless disowned by their families, people can enact reckless activism and return to their affluent backgrounds, whilst working-class trans people must bear the brunt of it all. What were once merely lofty ideas in academic institutions, has spread from wealthy academic professors and students, then to activism, then to working-class students attending arts universities where they become exposed to the elitist ideas, and then trickling down from the elitist academy into wider society and accidentally poisoning it by inflaming a war between people whom are convinced by these ideas and people who can see they are illogical!!!! The people who espouse gender theory call the doubters hateful phobes, and the doubters then are radicalised into thinking all gender nonconformity is mental illness.
Queer activists and trans people thought they would spread acceptance by going on morning TV shows to share their stories. But these shows such as This Morning belong to the same channels (ITV) that gratuitously enjoy the trials and tribulations of the working class on such shows as Jeremy Kyle. Did queer activists lead the rest of the queers like lambs to the slaughter in attempting to create a fairer society through the exploitative world of television? Holly and Phil, Ruth and Eamon, regularly look at their guests with a certain sanctimony.
Severe inaccuracies in leftist media which when contested are a silenced under the left’s suppression of free speech, creates fury in people and drives some people to seek out sources of unrestrained freedom of speech which is may be also inaccurate sources of hateful prejudice — a cess pit of hate but nonetheless provides them relief. People argue for absolute free speech or fascistic repression of free speech. I believe in the old adage of balance.
There are issues on the left that are denied and made taboo to talk about and you’re gaslit. Prominent trans activists themselves have admitted to me that there are certain ideas they cannot discuss from their platform and position for they themselves would be called transphobic.
IDEOLOGY
As mentioned, there are working-class voices and modern day trans people whom have begun to espouse these things, thinking they have to take on this language in order to navigate the academic spheres successfully and assimilate into queer spaces which offer them support. And perhaps they believe in it, because they felt gender questioning and the queer movement / gender theory was the first thing to provide them something to try and explore, align, and understand themselves with. Unfortunately, I see gender theory and LGBTQ+ ideology as the pimp upon gender nonconforming peoples. I.E, what you are in your essence of gender is suddenly absorbed into the praxis and politics of another ideology; another group’s system of thought rather than felt in your own autonomous subjectivity. Then you see your gender variance not with your own autonomy and individuality, but through a grander ideology, and then become conflated with all sorts of other forces (academia, politics etc.)
Intellectual ideologies and religions are the parasite upon the existing state of being that already knows itself without the need for an intellectual system.
Human beings cling to their cultures and tribes — the radical left have been naive to think mainstream society would simply abandon their cultural customs them willy nilly. I of course support all gender dissidence — I am highly critical of the progressive left precisely because I am in favour of it so much and want societies around the world to cease violence against gender nonconforming individuals, so recognise with upmost importance it needs to be done better. Why should we settle for the behaviour of sloppy activists, using activism as a way to seek fame and climb the career ladder? DEMAND EXCELLENCE I SAY.
MEDIA’S ROLE IN THE DIVISION
Media stations have their hand too, choosing the most irrational and contentious individuals on their panels and sofas merely for sensationalism. Newspapers and journalism have been acting vulgarly and dishonourably with such extreme sensationalism — all to try and keep the sales afloat and clicks up. I question if this may be in fact at the heart of LGBTQ+ excess and backlash: the desperation for journalistic outlets and media platforms to make money for a dying industry and using LGBTQ+ people as a sensationalist tool for CLICKS and PROFIT and in the process causing a massive culture war with insane ideas on both sides hurled like shit back and forth. The dying and floundering media industry, clawing to survive and dragging down any marginal individuals with it to sell papers or buy clicks.
CONCLUSION
As Tina Turner plays "We Don’t Need Another Hero" in Curzon cinema cafe where I am typing…. somehow kind of fitting……….all these cult leaders and self-appointed saviours.....
Is it some more efforts to think compassionately YET CLEARLY AND CRITICALLY more needed?
I will continue this essay in a second part analysing examples of JK Rowling and exploring the notion of the drag bans.