How the British Movement Against Gender Ideology Can Build Off the Cass Report
Various people have talked about an anti-Woke equivalent to the American NRA and pro-life movements... time to make it happen!
One of my favourite parts of Richard Hanania’s ‘The Origins of Woke’ is towards the end of the book where he outlines some practical steps to fight back. In a space which is so filled with black-pilled accelerationism, with the likes of Yarvin and Parvini endlessly talking about how it’s all hopeless and we need to just wait for the collapse, Hanania’s positive programme for change was very refreshing. This wasn’t the first time he did this, his essay ‘Conservatives Win All the Time’ is informative, white-pilling, and can inspire one into action.
You need a mixture of optimism and pessimism. We should never underestimate the power of the enemy we face, but at the same time, we must make sure that nothing we say inadvertently creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by demoralising us.
Hanania’s key suggestion in ‘The Origins of Woke’ was that the anti-Woke side create an interest group akin to the National Rifle Association (NRA) or the pro-life movement, which would dedicate all of its time and voting power to one issue and one issue only. He mentioned how, unlike those movements (the latter of which he passionately hates), the anti-Woke movement never created something akin to it, hence its relative weakness in terms of policy. Even in bitterness, Hanania says that the pro-life movement shows that you don’t need a majority of public support, nor even to be that ‘high status’, to be able to effect political change if you are committed.
Eric Kaufmann, in a lecture you can find here on YouTube, also echoed this. He mentioned how, whilst almost every Red State has imposed abortion bans, bans on affirmative action are far rarer, and this is because of the lack of organising. Aris Roussinos also talked about this on UnHerd, about why the British Right is so much weaker than the American Right.
Well, I thought that we’ve been discussing this excellent idea for long enough; it is time to take some practical steps towards making it happen.
A British Success: Anti-Transgenderism
Many people on the accelerationist Right will be telling you that the outrage from both the Tories AND Labour at the Cass Report, detailing how children were pushed into chemically castrating and mutilating themselves on the basis of manipulated ‘‘research’’ by trans-lobby groups, is proof of the ‘Woke Being Put Away’.
The way they just dismiss the enormous sacrifices so many people, predominantly women, made, losing their jobs, incomes, social circles, social status, subjected to harassment, death threats, publicly humiliated, etcetera… just to get us to this slightly less extremist point, is quite honestly offensive.
The only reason why any of this has happened is due to the immense and enormous bravery of the TERFs, who stuck their neck out, who became whistle-blowers at grave personal risk to themselves, and for whom the taunts of ‘bigot’ from former-friends did not stop them from exposing this monstrous evil.
The findings of the full Cass Report are devastating, and its encouraging that even Labour MPs are acting shocked and outraged. But make no mistake: whilst the transgender lobby may be licking its wounds for now, the immense power it has seized through institutional infiltration will not go down without a fight.
If this fleeting moment is not seized on, this brief moment could be seen as the same ‘backlash’ against gay rights in the 1980s with Section 28… all just a temporary roadblock in the march towards inevitable victory. In a few decades time they will endlessly remind us of this, taking for granted that such a minor moment of pushback was a bad thing, and forcing us to celebrate its repeal.
We must be absolutely on our guard, and must build on these gains. Now that being Gender Critical is now ‘respectable’ in the British Overton Window, and will not see one legally prosecuted, it’s time to go on the offensive.
Choosing an Issue
When Hanania and Kaufmann talk about an ‘anti-Woke NRA/Pro-Life’, they overlook that these lobby groups were single-issue. ‘Wokeness’ is a multi-dimensional issue. It’s intersectional character is what unites it all, but there are numerous component parts, which cannot be focused on all at once.
In edition, if we were to have just a blanket ‘anti-Woke’ movement, whatever that would be called, there is a danger it would be hijacked by Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) types, just focusing on vague appeals to ‘free speech’ and weltering away the moment it actually comes to defend a truly right-wing position or to purge DEI from the universities. Examples of this include the Free Speech Union in Britain, and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) in the United States.
Frustratingly, a lot of the IDW are trying to brand Woke as a term that means simply ‘anti-free speech’, and therefore promoting the concept of a ‘Woke Right’, which is not at all what the term means. Once again, Woke is the belief that Western society is inherently and systematically oppressive to all who aren’t non-trans straight White men, that this oppression is all pervasive in all institutions and culture, is intersectional in scope, and constant activism and deconstruction is needed to dismantle these hierarchies and establish ‘equity’.
Most of my readers will say that ‘immigration, immigration, immigration’ is the number one issue and I am a fool for choosing any other issue. But reducing immigration is still a popular position, and is the platform already of parties like Reform. Even Keir Starmer will talk about the need to reduce the numbers coming in; though whether he does that is an entirely different story. Many other people are interested in that issue, and it is good that we have all sorts of people with different focuses.
However, I think the LGBT lobby is one of the most insidious, vindictive, and conniving lobbies out there, because they can utilise the leavers of power they control to genuinely break people’s will to resist, ‘making’ people agree with them through mass demoralisation and psych-ops. The fact they have been responsible for the mutilation of children is a crime so abhorrent and evil, that anything other than prison for those who worked at the Tavistock, would serve as a message that their depravity is acceptable.
The fight against transgenderism is a fundamental struggle for empirical reality, against an establishment who are doing their best to demonstrate that if enough institutions are infiltrated and subverted, the average person will believe 2 + 2 = 5.
Transgenderism is also so batshit insane that some serious pushback has started to develop already, and in Britain, a window of it being ‘respectable’ (which won’t last if we don’t take advantage of it) has been opened.
So, if we can choose only one issue, I think that would be the issue we should focus on. Creating a broader anti-Woke movement will be good, but the American conservative mainstream got its positions from a number of separate, influential movements, like NRA and pro-life. One person cannot fight all the battles, one generally has to choose an issue to dedicate their life to. I want to focus on this one, given how repulsive and evil the trans agenda is, and how it is the thing that genuinely makes me fearful about young people today.
Shades of Gender Critical
The movements that already exist are good, but they are mostly all women-only. That does make sense for trying to build liberal establishment respectability, but I feel like the ‘liberal TERFism’ has gone as far as it can go, and it is mostly insufficient.
Recently, there has been a divide in the Gender Critical/TERF movement. On the one hand, you have people who really were solely concerned about access to single-sex spaces and child gender transition, and have no problem with transgenderism in and of itself, the aforementioned ‘Liberal TERF’s’. This is the view of J.K Rowling, Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce, and Andrew Doyle.
There is another faction, involving people like Meghan Murphy, Kellie Jay-Keen Minshull/Posie Parker, and the publication Reduxx, that believe that any compromises with transgenderism are impossible because it is an ideology based on a fundamental falsehood. No amount of scientific data or studies will stop this, as the fact that such studies on ‘when it is okay to mutilate kids who are suffering from delusions?’ are even happening is an outrageous abuse of children. There are no ‘genuinely transgender’ people, there are only people suffering from a severe mental illness, those groomed into cults, and fetishist, perverted, and dangerous men.
Whilst this tendency is good, it 1) also tends to be restricted to women only, and 2) tends to be more explicitly RadFem, and convolutes it’s message by also talking about prostitution and sex work needing to be banned.
This divide started over the issue of using pronouns for certain ‘moderate transgenders’ who believed in single-sex spaces and not transitioning kids, chief among them ‘Debbie’ Hayton. However, some of the so called ‘moderates’ were caught boasting about ‘breastfeeding’ (aka, abusing adopted children), making the entire concept of the ‘reasonable’ transgender extremely questionable. It also is inconsistent; as Michael Knowles said, if you think transgenderism is false, it is false for everybody; whether children or adults, and whatever you think of the individual person or their opinions. Therefore, using ‘preferred pronouns’ is unacceptable because it is a denial of reality, and it was these ‘niceties’ that got us into this nightmare in the first place. There can be no compromise with falsehood.
I am not a fan of Andrew Doyle, to me representing the ‘IDW’ tendency that plagues the British Right, in thinking this is all just one big joke that can be debated and mocked away… He talked about the TERF divide in UnHerd, again just pleading for ‘don’t alienate people’, when a true anti-Woke movement is NEVER going to get establishment respectability unless the establishment is forced to respect them.
It’s clear that the Overton Window has gotten to a stage where Liberal TERFism is a ‘tolerated’, if still ostracised, position in elite liberal circles. But we need to build on this, we should use the momentum generated by what the TERFs started to build our own movement to attack the very core of the LGBT project. The trans activists already think they’re puppets of us regardless, and will keep on repeating it; so, it not being true is just a waste.
We need to infiltrate the Gender Critical Movement, making sure to maintain its single-issue focus and respectability. There is a major problem with young women being Woke. However, the Gender Critical Movement is a cause where they are most likely to be persuaded, as long as we focus on just that issue, with people like Riley Gaines and her campaign to ‘save women’s sports’ the exact type of person we need to engage them.
The organisation I am thinking of would be a predominantly youth movement, and will be open to young people of both sexes. Engaging young people is very important, and it’s what political movements always do to gain status, including the anti-abortion movement. We should model ourselves off organisations like Students for Life of America.
This organisation would clearly emphasise its single-issue character, being open to all races and religions, united only by the conviction that there can be no compromise whatsoever with transgenderism, and ultimately, LGBT ideology.
Finally, unlike most Gender Critical movements, that buy into the Neocon Cycle with lines like ‘stop transing gay kids’, and are easily seen as ‘progressives without the latest software update’, this organisation would, whilst not campaigning on it explicitly, actively seek to dismantle the entire LGBT project; through tangible, piecemeal, realistic goals.
What Would This Organisation Be?
This organisation would be a British Political Action Committee, the first of its kind. It would create a scorecard for every MP, based on their record on opposing transgenderism and LGBT extremism, with a chapter in each electoral constituency. If a sitting MP has been active in opposing transgenderism, for instance Miriam Cates or Kemi Badenoch, then the chapter would join the Conservative Party and actively leaflet and canvass for them.
If they are somebody like, Caroline Nokes or Tobias Ellwood, the chapter would join the largest right-wing challenger to the Conservatives (Reform at the moment), deliberately weaponizing the spoiler effect that is an unfortunate product of First Past the Post, a system I very much dislike but the system which exists.
What Would Be the Platform and Member-Base?
This organisation would be strictly single-issue. However, it would have various elements that, whilst mostly focusing on the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of child gender transition and ‘single-sex spaces’, has an underpinning of a rejection of the entire LGBT project.
It would utilise the imagery of the Gender Critical project, but would subtly exclude ‘softer’ Gender Critical campaigners that emphasise ‘LGB without the T’. This should be accomplished through the use of ‘dogwhistles’, and microaggressions to repel them from our organisation but at the same time give plausible deniability to the attractive woman that wants to join us, and therefore enhance our social standing.
We must never criticise Section 28, our belief is fundamentally that the policy did not go far enough. Accepting the framing of the ‘anti-gay attitudes of the 1980s were wrong’ has given the LGBT extremists a major propaganda victory against even those on the Right. Having ‘LGBT History Month’ celebrate its overturning is a humiliating power flex that we must never give into.
Our ‘single-issue’ nature however should mean we avoid taking any stances on issues unrelated to LGBT. This would mark us out from the more radical TERF groups, that combine a hardline stance against transgenderism with an equally harsh stance against sex work and prostitution. Our position should be neutrality, and whilst we would use slogans in defence of ‘sex-based rights’ and ‘single-sex spaces’, we would ensure it remains exclusively related to anti-transgenderism.
We should work with all religions and all races, and people with a whole range of different opinions on other issues, the only uniting factor being agreement on this one issue. If the campaign remains single-issue, it can tap into Muslim grievances with LGBT, that looked like a promising alliance prior to October 7th, without causing a divide.
Our objectives should be this. Bear in mind the long-term objectives are only likely to be achieved in many decades:
Short Term:
Having a full investigation into the tragedy of Tavistock.
A complete ban on all child gender transitions.
Emphasise ‘justice for detransitioners’, and for those responsible for harming them subject to massive damages and prison sentences.
Ban the ‘sexualisation of children’.
Mandating that women have access to single-sex spaces, in public toilets, sports, domestic abuse shelters, and prisons, across Britain. .
Requiring full transparency about trans-identifying individuals birth sex in all public records.
Cutting all public funding for NGOs pushing for ‘experimental drugs on children’ and ‘extremist transgender ideology’.
Make the pride flag a ‘political and extremist symbol’, and have MPs work to cut it from all publicly funded bodies, such as the police and the NHS. Do the same for pronouns, that should be brought to employment tribunals as a ‘coercive work environment’.
Reforming sex education curriculums to exclude pro-transgender content, this would quietly be used to erase all pro-LGBT content.
Advocate restrictions on children’s access to social media and pornography, for the pure purpose as stopping them being susceptible to transgender ideology.
Medium Term
Push for the re-classification of transgenderism as a mental illness.
Start subtly re-emphasising heterosexuality as a ‘norm’.
Attack the very foundations of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, and stop recognising any gender in law other than ‘biological sex’. Start to phase out the term ‘gender’ and replace it with ‘sex’.
Spread awareness about the LGB guilt in spreading trans ideology and harming children.
Spread awareness about the LGT movement being intolerant and undemocratic from the start.
Attack Wikipedia bias on LGBT issues, and get these brought to public attention. Discuss creating a rival alternative to Wikipedia based on ‘empiricism’, which mostly just changes the coverage of transgenderism.
Start talking about ‘religious freedom’ from a secular perspective, and the perception that those of religious faith are attacked by intolerant LGBT fanatics.
Create a ‘revisionist narrative’ about Section 28, have MPs advocate for patronage of historical studies and the arts to counter the pro-LGBT narrative.
Start to rehabilitate what is today known as ‘conversion therapy’.
Create more of a platform for a ‘secular anti-gay’ stance, that can bring in more people than seeing it purely as a ‘religious-right’ issue, by tying it explicitly to Wokeness.
Long-Term
Create Hungary and Russia style laws against ‘LGBT propaganda’.
Repeal gay marriage through stealth through ‘marriage privatisation’, under the guise of ‘religious freedom’ and ‘free association’.
Explicitly preference heterosexual couples with biological children in law.
Create explicit lessons in school ‘against’ LGBT ideology.
Have widespread documentaries and dramas about the transing of kids. It should be seek akin to the mass failure of institutions to protect against Jimmy Saville.
Strategy
Step 1: Scorecards
The first step would be to research each candidate’s positions, using the LGBT organisations like Stonewall ‘LGBT Ally’ index and simply reversing them. We should make an interactive map detailing which sitting MPs support our positions and which should be supported, a bit like this one from Make Votes Matter. This step may be able to be completed prior to the election later this year, and if we can effectively meme it and get it to go viral, it could grow in influence.
Step 2: Constituency Party Branch Activism
The next step would be to set up grassroots activists in all constituencies, officially being a cross-partisan organisation but in truth, switching between membership of Conservatives and Reform. This won’t be possible to get set up before the election, so it will have to be focused on the next one.
When it comes to the Conservatives, the local branch that are members of the party should show up to nomination meetings, and choose shortlisted candidates based solely on their stance on transgenderism and LGBT extremism.
If they agree to our demands, we will dedicate a large amount of our life to campaign for them. If they do not, we will either stay at home, or have the entire organisation in that constituency leave the Conservative Party and back a deliberate spoiler candidate at the time of the election. The endorsement of our organisation should come to be highly prized.
Step 3: Build Substantial Personal Relations With Conservative MPs and Councillors
We need to imbed ourselves deeply into the social circles of Tory politicians, the little networks of private school and Oxbridge kids. They need to experience substantial social ostracism if they deviate from our policy objectives, this is the ‘make or break’ issue. We need to be constantly pushing them in our direction.
Whilst British local councils have nowhere near the level of authority as local government and the states do in America, they are not entirely powerless, and will give the organisation breathing life in-between Westminster elections. Some things, like single-sex public toilets and displaying of pride flags on local authority property, would be local prerogative, so change can be made on the local level.
Step 4: Work with the Conservative Democratic Organisation
We should push, as much as we possibly can, internal reform within the Conservative Party to promote American (or even Canadian) style party primaries, by assisting the Conservative Democratic Organisation. Sitting MPs should be beholden to Conservative Party members.
In regards to ‘appealing to the centre-ground’, the natural electoral cycle means that this matters little; if Jeremy Corbyn had become Labour leader in 2020 instead of 2015, he would have a good shot of becoming Prime Minister. Additionally, if a party has no principles on which to stand, and it’s only orientation is towards ‘winning elections’, then what is the purpose of its existence?
The Conservative Party needs to completely reshape itself as a ‘party of principle’ rather than a ‘party of power’. It is not, and should not perceive itself as being, entitled to power. It should want power for ideological, nor purely personal, reasons, for if personal enrichment is what you are after, politics is not the right location: finance would be a better option.
If changes are made to democratise the party, something we should work for (whilst maintaining our focus on that one issue and using this as a means to achieve it), all remaining CINO (Conservative in Name Only), pro-LGBT Tory MPs should be ‘primaried’ (or ‘deselected’ to use a more British term). A mass campaign across the entire Conservative base, which would be a ‘base’ far more than it is today, would launch a co-ordinated attacks on Cameronite liberal Tories, like the 2010 American Tea Party.
Step 5: Organising University Chapters
We should set up university chapters, though these should be clandestine at first, as they will unquestionably lead to attacks from LGBT thugs. However, if the movement gets sufficient funding, connections in the media, and the ability to publicise such campus incidents to portray the LGBT activists as contemptuous of democracy and free speech, these chapters can start to operate openly, and likewise start co-ordinating political action.
To get to this point, when a university society advocating anti-transgenderism can operate openly, will of course be an extremely long road. It will take many decades of hard, patient work, loss of social standing, ostracism from those we might otherwise like. But even if we get a tiny minority of students on board, it will make a huge difference.
Step 6: Organising Professional Associations
Our campus activism should lead to a generation of sympathisers in all ‘elite’ professions; like law and the civil service. It probably won’t be a majority, but as the American conservative movement shows, a majority is not necessary, only a well-organised minority, like the Federalist Society. If we can link students of various courses together, towards political activism, we can create a vast network of groups, like the LGBT movement did, which can influence the elite section of society.
Step 7: Make Being a Pro-LGBT Tory Unthinkable
Like the ‘pro-choice Republican’ and the ‘pro-gun control Republican’, the Stonewall-affiliated Tory MP, like Caroline Nokes or Penny Mourdant, will become a thing of the past, with it immediately labelling one a ‘CINO’ and completely ostracised from the party, with Conservative activists in each constituency leaving to promote a right-wing spoiler. The Conservative Party should stop being a big tent organisation and start outlining the ways where it is substantially different from the Labour Party. ‘LGBT Conservatives’ should become a lonely, sad little meeting, widely mocked as ‘self-hating’.
Step 8: Make the Next Tory Government ‘Based’
Then, like the anti-abortion movement in the United States, any Conservative government would immediately take action against transgenderism, regardless of popularity. I don’t believe transgenderism will be as popular as abortion, especially once we expose the horrors of it; but either way, because we do not have ballot measures in Britain, majority opinion will be irrelevant. Like the LGBT activists did, we should seek to ‘manufacture consent’ towards our worldview, and make LGBT ideology ostracised and shunned from political discourse, like anti-LGBT views are today.
Why This is Important
Even though I do not like to show them any degree of sympathy, the LGBT movement is only so powerful because they did this; because they were prepared to sacrifice everything and stake everything on this one issue. If we are not prepared to do the same, aren’t they right to laugh at us? Our record of sticking to our convictions despite initial defeats has not been strong, and their unlimited smugness will only be burst if they actually see society move against them, and their enemies not fold up and quit.
I hate the system of representative democracy we live in, when the most intolerant, fanatical activists get to dictate public policy, and majorities get little say. Both an (anti-Woke) authoritarian regime and a direct democracy would be preferable, as they would better check the power of these militant minorities. But in order to change the system, you have to work within the system; if we are passionate about opposing Wokeism, we must become our own militant minority.
The road to success will be long, but at least one will be able to say at the end of their lives: ‘I did everything I could to stop the mutilation of children.’ We might lose, but it is better to be the last man standing for a lost cause, than to pathetically capitulate and surrender like the American anti-gay marriage movement did after Obergefell. Never let their demoralisation, humiliation, and mockery get to you; for as long as you are there, underneath that smug demeanour will be an insecurity that the tide really could turn against them.
Mobilising religious conservatives will be key in this, as for most people, an element of religious conviction, as deeply held as the LGBT activists hold theirs, will be required. Whilst not using religious arguments within the group itself, there should be engagement with religious communities to make opposing transgenderism as the will of their God, like how American Christians see abortion. For secular activists, pictures of mutilated children and women, especially previously attractive women, will constantly be shown, as a resolute reason for why we are fighting, and why we are putting everything on the line to achieve our goal of vanquishing this diabolical evil from our nation.
What Can We Do Now?
If you see something that ‘should’ exist, what’s stopping you from creating it? Conservative elites are extremely overstretched as they have a crippling shortage of elite capital, they cannot be in numerous places at once. The Woke are good at imbedding their presence in every facet of public life because they have hundreds of thousands of true believers, who are willing to dedicate their lives to it.
Unlike my ‘How the British Right Can Create a Counter-Elite’ article, which relied on the well-connected reading it, this is something that an ordinary person can get involved in, and something I am planning to start myself.
The beginning stages of setting this up are happening between me and a few other people. If any of my British readers (sorry Americans, highly recommend you do something similar) want to get in touch, send me a DM.
Here are some of the various skillsets we need, and people with skills in any of these fields will be highly welcome:
Planners and organisers.
Experience with fundraising and soliciting donations from big donors.
Experiences working in media.
Experience working in NGOs.
Experience with political campaigns.
Accountancy for managing the finances.
Lawyers in case the Blob comes after us.
Social media and meme communication.
Web design experience.
Programming skills to create interactive infographics.
Attractive people, men and women.
Those who are good at working in normie, ‘high-status’ environments and persuading them.
Though, even if you have no skills, I’m sure that we could find a job for you.
Conclusion
Right-wingers don’t care, we’re mostly indifferent, and we don’t hold our beliefs as deeply as the Woke left hold theirs. That’s what we’re always told by poll after poll. We are also constantly subjected to demoralising polling showing Gen Z to be the most pro-Woke in history, even by allies like Eric Kauffmann, where there can be no quiet hope that they’re manipulated.
The only way we can combat this is to prove people wrong. Show that we are prepared to dedicate as much time and energy into fighting for our values as the Woke LGBT activists are theirs. And if young people are Woke now, every effort possible should be made to change their minds, something that in Britain, has barely even be tried, with right-parties instead focusing on elderly Boomers. But the young control the future, and so must be the centre of any movement. Public opinion in continental Europe and Anglophone Canada show that youth Wokeness is ‘not’ inevitable, and can be changed.
Let’s actually try to make this happen; prove their taunts of our powerlessness and lack of conviction wrong. We will create a group chat, arrange formal Zoom meetings at least once a week, and invest time into making this group a reality.
Have the confidence and self-belief to say, however much they laugh at you: We’re Going to Win.
Respectfully, I must disagree. Yes, the LGBT coalition has become odious and the trannies are the worst of the lot. But trying to replicate the success of the NRA and the anti-abortion movement without understanding how they were successful will result in failure.
Firstly, when the NRA was first formed, there was virtually no active opposition to gun ownership. At the time of its formation, the NRA was supported by all classes. It was not just a 'grass roots' movement. In the intervening years, certain parts of the ruling class decided that ordinary people shouldn't have guns and there was a transformation to the very specific 'civil rights' organization you see now. So, the NRA developed without any significant organized opposition. This will not be the case with any anti-LGBTQ movement. It's also important to note that the NRA is even *more* successful these days than it has in the past because organization has 'bipartisan' support, but only because *liberals* have been buying guns hand over fist in order to defend themselves from 'conservatives'. Now that every American thinks they'll likely need to kill their neighbors, guns are a less likely to come under political attack.
The anti-abortion movement also originated when there no organised single-issue 'pro-choice' movement except American jewry. This will not be the case with any anti-LGBTQ movement. Also, the most recent ruling on Roe v Wade was not a 'success'. The anti-abortion movement had already succeeded at making an abortion difficult to acquire in most counties in the USA. They had done this at the local level because anti-abortion sentiment is a very local phenomenon. As GOP candidates are now finding out, *at the state level* maximal anti-abortion positions do not have wide support. The painful fact is that the anti-abortion movement is about to get 'schooled' and will be suffering some crushing defeats in many of their strong-hold states in the not-too-distant future.
TLDR: Neither the NRA or the anti-abortion movements are good models. Both made their appearance when their opponents were not as organized as the LGBTQ movement is now. The NRA's current level of political success is largely the result of the perception of a coming civil war, and nothing that the NRA itself did. The anti-abortion forces are, in fact, losing ground that they've held for decades.
I do not believe the Leviathan of liberalism can be eliminated one bit at a time. Liberalism has to be confronted with something that is both *appealing* to large numbers of people (of nearly all political persuasions) and whose success would *completely dismantle* and erase liberalism in all its forms.
The essence of that kind of counter-liberal ideology involves 'local rule' and 'customary freedoms' and an end to the 'free movement' across of goods, services, information, people and money. And end to central rule and 'one size fits all'.
Such an approach eliminates all artificial and synthetic rights and replaces them with 'customary freedoms' and 'customary duties' as defined by local custom.
The trannies can have their deviance in their deviant communities.
The rest of us can have what we want in our communities.
The LGBTQ will no longer be able to externalize the costs of their behaviors onto those that do not participate in them. (The cost of LGBTQ healthcare is a huge burden on those with normal, heterosexual lifestyles.)
The benefit of this approach is that you force your opponent to admit that they are not interested in 'freedom' (a major trope of liberalism) and are, in fact, interested in imposing their will on the unwilling.
"The only reason why any of this has happened is due to the immense and enormous bravery of the TERFs, who stuck their neck out, who became whistle-blowers at grave personal risk to themselves, and for whom the taunts of ‘bigot’ from former-friends did not stop them from exposing this monstrous evil."
Thank you for saying this.