June 2017 was designated as pride month in America, a fact that could have only been missed in most major American cities by the extremely colorblind, or those naive enough to still be living in a world where the rainbow is the symbol of a covenant between man and God.
Everything in my city was altered in some way for pride: restaurant servers informed me that a percentage of our bill would be going towards LGBT charities, ‘pride and tonic’ cocktails were offered to me for 14 dollars each, I observed multiple LGBT dance parties in museums and public places, and the internet was awash with images of state buildings or state vehicles altered to show pride in being LGBT. Even the line on the map Uber uses to show my journey to me was changed into a rainbow.
What can we make of this social spectacle? What does it mean? What is really being celebrated here? What information is actually being disseminated to the masses in this cultural display?
Step with me back in time slightly. It’s the 80s / 90s, and the idea of homosexuality as mainstream is coming to a head in modern American society. The AIDS crisis has pushed the issue to the front of the social sphere, and Americans must now decide, collectively, what to think about gay people.
Maybe this started in the 70s, maybe it started earlier: when you think this all began is largely irrelevant. What’s important is that we’re looking at the long arc from gay people being unaccepted in society to today, a time when they generally are accepted and celebrated. What was the general battle cry during this time? From the start of the LGBT rights movement to gay marriage legalization, what was the main thrust of the movement, the iron tipped spear plunged directly into the hearts of hateful bigots everywhere?
“We’re just like you. We’re exactly the same as straight people.”
#LoveIsLove! Love just is, it doesn’t matter if it’s between two men or two women or two straight people, all love is exactly the same. A man being gay has nothing to do with who he is, he’s just like any other straight guy, and to act like being gay somehow makes him different from us would just be total abject bigotry.
If you were someone in 2008 who thought that gay people were somehow inherently different from straight people, that they had a different way of being, different social customs, different sexual practices, you would have been labeled homophobic, full stop. To diverge from this idea that gay people were just straight people with one little difference was essentially the same as saying “I hate gay people”.
I can demonstrate this perfectly with an “historical” example. As the gay marriage issue reached its maximum height of public interest (probably just before its full legalization), many Republicans brought up an interesting point: if we’re saying marriage is no longer defined by religion or the traditions of our culture, then what is the logical reason for preventing polygamy? We’re saying that some people think gay marriage is wrong, but that doesn’t give the state the right to step in and prevent people from expressing their love. Why does the state then suddenly have a right to prevent polygamous marriages just becomes some other people think they’re bad or weird?
Now, right off the bat, I just have to say, this is a stone cold fact. Every single argument against polygamy could also be leveled against gay marriage and fails to hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. This completely and totally outraged liberals at the time by the way: they were absolutely appalled that anyone would dare compare two non-mainstream sexual practices that have generally been demonized by western culture for most of recent history. Of course, they’ve changed their tune, and liberals now think that anyone who has a problem with open relationships or polyamory is just old fashioned. Funny how that works.
Anyway, this is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Implying that state level normalization of homosexuality could have other possibly negative effects was the equivalent of being literally Hitler, because it implied that gay people weren’t exactly like straight people with a slightly different sexual preference.
Let’s see how this principle and idea has held up now that gay marriage is legalized.
Oh look, it hasn’t, at all. We’re now on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, where to suggest that a gay person’s gayness is irrelevant to them as a person is erasing their gay identity. If I had an employee and I said, “Look, I just don’t want to hear about your sex life. To me, it has nothing to do with who you are, I don’t think sexual things have a place at work, just keep it to yourself” that would now be homophobic. To say that people making their sexuality into the defining feature of their identity are misguided is homophobia now, despite the fact that this was literally the rallying cry to granting the LGBT community social normalization in the first place.
We are seeing a massive national movement wherein people assert that their sexual preferences and gender identity are a defining feature of who they are and their internal culture, after twenty to thirty plus years of propaganda that told us literally the exact opposite: that we shouldn’t think that a different sexuality makes someone different from us.
LGBT activist 1970s: why won’t you bigots realize that I’m just like you? We’re exactly the same as straight people.
LGBT activist 2010s: Why do keep trying to make us “act straight”? We don’t want to fit into your straight cis-hetero culture, stop trying to erase my queerness and just accept it.
This process is exactly what happens whenever any minority group is granted social normalization in our culture. I call it “the minority flip”: it is an instantaneous flip in how a minority group is perceived depending on how far along the road they are to gaining more social capital. A few examples (realize that this has nothing to do with what you think about the merits of each of these movements. I’m just using them as examples to document a social phenomena that is important for us to understand):
First: Black people are exactly the same as white people, we just have a different skin color.
Later: Stop trying to make us act white. Stop erasing our blackness. Accept that I’m black.
First: We’re Americans just like you. We’ll become American just like you.
Later: Stop trying to erase our cultural identity, let us be who we are.
First: This man really is a woman, please just let him be a normal woman.
Later: I’m a non-binary pansexual and if you don’t respect and embrace that then you are a sick person.
This is the case for every group that fights to become normalized into American culture, that wants to stop being viewed as a smaller subset of the culture at large. First, they fight to establish that there is actually no difference between them and the larger population. Then, once the larger population accepts them, they act as though any attempt to treat them as normal members of the group at large is oppressive.
Since it’s the whole point of this article, I’ll say it again more simply: a group fights to be treated like everyone else, then when they’re treated like everyone else, they act as though that treatment is an oppressive attempt to erase their identity.
If I really truly believed that someone being gay didn’t make them any different than me, what reason would I have to celebrate their gayness? Why would I think anything of it, if it really has nothing to do with who they are as a person?
The reality is that these LGBT activists do not want to become normalized into the culture. Becoming normal people that are completely integrated into American society is literally the opposite of what they want. They want their unique identities to be badges that grow their own visibility, not shrink it. They don’t want to become just like everyone else, they want the sexual activity they define themselves by to grow in importance: it is their passport to gaining more social status, more of an exalted image, it is their key to the culture at large.
They actively promote defining themselves by certain qualities, but if other people assert that these qualities are meaningful, they cry discrimination. This is exactly paralleled by the black identity movements. If I say that a black person is exactly the same as a white person and that their blackness means nothing, I’m being colorblind and erasing this person’s blackness. If I accept that and try and figure out the specific ways in which black people are inherently different from white people, I’m super racist. A double bind is established where you cannot win.
So, why is this important? For a few reasons. It’s important to see how society can rapidly alternate between completely paradoxical viewpoints whenever it is convenient. It’s important to realize that society puts you into a lose / lose situation with regards to how you treat any minority group, if you’re part of the majority group: either you treat them like the majority, and you’re erasing their identity, or you treat them like they’re different and you’re discriminating against them.
But there’s a much more fun reason that it is important to notice this: it’s about to happen again. It’s about to happen with a new group of people, and if you know what to look for, you will literally be able to watch it happen almost instantaneously over the next… one to five years. Please guess who the group is before I introduce them to you, you’ve probably heard of them before, oh boy, it’s (get ready)…
Muslims. You are about to watch the same exact process take place with Islam in American culture.
Up until the year of our Lord two thousand and one, Muslims had largely flew under the radar in America (pun absolutely intended). As of the data I’ve seen from a few years ago, America is less than or about 1% Muslim (we can only hope this stays the case as long as possible). This means that America never really had to “feel” one way or the other about Islam, they never had to know anything about it, right up until two planes slammed into the World Trade Center and this guy became the most famous man in America seemingly overnight:
Most Americans naturally developed a slightly negative view of Islam, with their general aversion to global jihad and stuff, and we went to war with a small chunk of the Muslim world. Many Americans urged people to consider that it was not all Muslims that were “like that”, but it didn’t really matter overall: we were at war, few Americans really seemed to think of it as a war with Muslim people as a whole, and there were so few Muslims in America it honestly seemed to not really matter at all.
But then, the refugee crisis forced the issue. All of a sudden millions of people were trying to come into Europe and the question was raised: does it matter that they’re Muslim?
This is essentially the question, and it will continue to be raised as Islam further and further attempts to permeate our society. It will be raised when there are more Muslim politicians, it will be raised when there is more Muslim terror, it will be raised when there are more Muslim communities in the US: does it matter that these people are Muslim? Are they just like “us”, or are they different?
The tactic I have described here is exactly how Islam will attempt to normalize itself in Western culture. We are currently on the first side of the flip in America. We are presently being inundated with propaganda: celebrities and politicians all assuring us that Islam is just like Christianity and Judaism and Atheism, that all religions are exactly the same, and that these people are exactly like us in every way, just give them some time to integrate and they’ll be American exactly like me and you.
Many people actually believe this. There is a large set of the population that truly thinks that a 35 year old Pakistani man who believes that women should be stoned to death for adultery can get on a plane and come to America and then magically become American just like you, just like the Donaldson family down the road. I cannot elaborate on the alchemical process by which this takes place, you’d have to ask them.
We are ostensibly being instructed to believe an absurdity: that all religions, regardless of their origins, histories, and founders, are all exactly the same. All religions have exactly the same effect on populations and people: what someone believes has nothing to do with who they are. This is obviously literally insane.
But let’s say we accept this posit and say: okay, fine. That’s how it is.
Then comes phase two, which is slowly beginning in Europe and will accelerate there shortly.
After Muslims are accepted as part of the culture, after they are normalized, they will then demand to be treated differently: they will demand that the things that make them different from the majority are respected, and if these differences are not respected, upheld, in some cases even adapted by the majority, that this is an act of oppression by the majority. We are well into this phase with all of the groups I’ve described above.
They tell us that Islam is just like the religions already present in our culture, but how long before their higher standards of modesty and different social codes begin to affect how we do things in our society? And if Islam really is just like every other religion, then if we notice something unique about Islam, it must be us being Islamaphobic, or maybe it’s our Islamaphobic society causing the difference.
This flip will be used to normalize and enmesh into our culture an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our society in every single way.
This pattern is so standard and omnipresent that obviously this will now be the standard path to cultural capital followed by every minority group in America seeking to gain social status. Another group we’ll see it with is polysexual people: first, we’ll be told their love is just like monogamous love, then once we accept that, we’ll be forced to recognize and celebrate all the things that make polysexual people different and special, so they aren’t forced “back into the shadows”.
Recognizing this ‘minority flip’ pattern makes it easy to point out to others, and it perfectly manifests one of the fundamental absurdities of the modern worldview: if a group of people is just like everyone else, there are no differences to be celebrated. But if there are differences… then they’re different, in which case, shouldn’t we be allowed to think of them as different?