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.
Virtually every movement you look at will be a success *within the context of liberalism* but I don't think we want to ameliorate liberalism, we want to interdict and quarantine it.
If you want to study a successful social movement that flies under the radar every day, study Alcoholics Anonymous. It's a 'liberal' movement, but the manner of its formation and growth and stabilization has great value for anyone looking to create something both local and international in scope. The story of how Bill W. and Doctor Bob helped create, nurture and stabilize a movement of alcoholics is very instructive. The one book I read was 'Not God'.
"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."
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.
In response to Neir's comment, I've started reading up in a lot more detail about the history's of these two movements to see what we can learn.
Virtually every movement you look at will be a success *within the context of liberalism* but I don't think we want to ameliorate liberalism, we want to interdict and quarantine it.
If you want to study a successful social movement that flies under the radar every day, study Alcoholics Anonymous. It's a 'liberal' movement, but the manner of its formation and growth and stabilization has great value for anyone looking to create something both local and international in scope. The story of how Bill W. and Doctor Bob helped create, nurture and stabilize a movement of alcoholics is very instructive. The one book I read was 'Not God'.
Oh I'm part of a movement adjacent to AA, and it helps me a great deal.
"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.
I'd have done a great disservice if I didn't mention it.
You women are heroes and we are all in your debt.
This whole project has a very cargo cult feel to it.
Have you spent any time looking into how the gun rights or pro-life movements are organized, beyond them focusing on a single issue?
I’ll need to do some more in depth research about it.
> Finally, unlike most Gender Critical movements, that buy into the Neocon Cycle
Says the sex-positive abortion supporter.