Blog

One of the biggest leaps forward for the gay rights movement was the development of the word “gay.”

Prior to the word gay, the only word to describe gay people was “homosexual.” Homosexual was a medical diagnosis (until 1987). The word was a combination of the words “homo” – often used as a slur for gay people – and “sexual” – which meant you couldn’t say the word without saying the word “sexual” and bring to mind all the images associated with that word. Imagine trying to argue that a medical diagnosis for perverted sexuality was a positive identity.

“Gay” brought to mind different images. Gay was a word for being happy or carefree. The word “gay” applied to gay people whether or not you were happy. I know gay people who are absolutely morose or depressed, but the word “gay” still applies to them, with all of its positive associations. Even though the original definition of the word gay (“happy”) does not apply to all gay people, it is much easier to argue that “gay” is a positive identity, than a medical diagnosis for perverse sexuality.

Which brings us to Autism.

Right now, the only word to describe neuroatypical people is “autistic.” Autistic is a medical diagnosis. The full word is “autism disorder” which implies that this is a medical problem that needs to be “cured.” The only other word to describe autism is “Asperger syndrome” which literally contains the word “ass” at the front and again ends with a diagnostic word – “syndrome” – which implies aspie behaviors are just a symptom people experience that can be cured, not a full identity. Imagine trying to argue that a medical diagnosis for a mental disorder is a positive identity.

Yet, this is exactly what the neurodiversity movement is doing. The neurodiversity movement believes that the different ways people perceive and experience the word are not good or bad “disorders,” but simply natural variations that are all valid. Yet, the language they use is still grounded in the assumptions of disorder.

If we want neuroatypical people to be accepted, we need a positive word for autism – like “gay” was for “homosexual” – such that neurotypical people who think through branding and words can accept the identity.

This word does not have to be literally accurate or true. Once, I described this problem to a group of autistic people I was speaking with and proposed the word “bright” as a word for a positive identity. Many said they didn’t feel like this word described them or they identified with it. Yet, that’s not the point. Many people attracted to the same sex would not describe themselves as “happy” or “carefree” all the time either. The word isn’t for them, but the people they are trying to reach.

This could be extended to all aspects of branding. The gay rights movement did not just stop at the word “gay.” They also used the rainbow as their symbol. Again, most people have very positive associations with the rainbow. Rainbows are beautiful. They are diverse and contain many different colors. They emerge after storms as a sign the bad weather has passed. Who doesn’t like rainbows?

Autism has symbols too, but they have been defined and chosen by those with the “disorder” belief system. For example, many “disorder” groups use the puzzle piece as a symbol for autism. No autistic person I know identifies with this symbol. Puzzles are hard, complex, and difficult to figure out. Most people find them frustrating. This symbol presents autistics as a “problem” that needs to be “solved.” Who wants to be seen as a problem?

Part of the challenge here is that this is not how most autistic people think. We think logically and literally. This branding challenge requires autistics to convey their reality in a way that is technically false, but produces the correct reaction in neurotypicals. This is not lying. It’s branding. We have to convey a true reality through symbols and story.

There is a moment in the film The Last Unicorn (1982), that illustrates this perfectly. In the film, a unicorn is captured by a carnival. One of the carnival workers creates a false horn and places it on the unicorn’s head. The unicorn becomes confused and asks why the worker is doing this when she has a real horn already. The carnival worker replies that her horn is too magical, so magical in fact, that the regular peasants cannot see her real form. She has to create a fake horn so that the peasants can see that she is a unicorn.

Neuroatypicals are in a similar position. Our way of seeing the world is so unique that most neurotypicals cannot see it. They just become confused and think they are staring at a puzzle they have to solve. If given a symbol – a false representation of the real thing – they could understand the simulacra of our experience, since the real is too magical for them to perceive.

What should this name be? I don’t know yet. The word “gay” was not chosen by one person or even a group of people but emerged naturally. There might be another word that emerges for neuroatypicals. Yet, neuroatypicals tend to be very deliberate thoughtful people. I’m sure if we begin discussing the question and thinking in these terms of branding, symbols, and linguistic association, we can eventually arrive at a better name and set of symbols for ourselves than the dominant culture has in their muggle attempts to puzzle over us.

What do you think it should be?

---

For more of my writing, subscribe here.

There was an article in the Washington Post asking screenwriters: If 2020 was a movie, how would it end?

Imagine for a minute that 2020 was a movie you’re watching. If you were analyzing this as a film, what would it be trying to tell you? Who are the major characters? What theme is it trying to communicate? What is the message of 2020?

The article didn’t really answer this. Most showrunners said 2020 didn’t follow the principles of screenwriting. Plotlines were introduced and never explored again. Characters failing to learn or grow from events. Of course, they’re wrong. If 2020 were a film or TV series, it’s themes would be extremely obvious to anyone outside it. It’s just that those living the story are in denial about the obvious truth. In fact, even that article in the Washington Post follows the themes of this pattern.

One of the things screenwriters talking about 2020 struggled with was how many characters there are. In a story with this many characters often a central theme or force is actually the real main character. That thematic character is embodied by different people, but no matter the scene, it’s actually those characters interacting. Who are the thematic main characters of 2020?

In 2020, it’s crisis and denial.

Crisis and denial are the two main characters of 2020. Every scene is a conflict between these characters.

In every scene, crisis rises and is met with denial.

COVID? Crisis met with denial. WHO said there was no human to human transmission, people said it was “just the flu,” that we couldn’t do travel plans. Then lockdowns were “two weeks to stop the spread.”

Lockdowns? Crisis met with denial. People thought this would be temporary, but it became a multi-month way of life. People were in denial about the economic, psychological, and legal impact of shutting down the entire world.

Police brutality? Crisis met with denial. Racism? Crisis met with denial. Protests and riots? Crisis met with denial. No trust in the media? Crisis met with denial. RGB dies? Crisis met with denial. Trump gets COVID? Crisis met with denial. Every major event of 2020 follows this pattern. I’ll bet you can even see some places in your personal life this year where you experienced crisis initially met with denial.

By the way, once you see the pattern, you can predict what will happen next. The election? Whoever wins, you can bet there will be crisis met with denial. In fact, any election outcome points to this pattern.

This pattern fits no matter what side you take on any 2020 issue.

“It’s just the flu.” Denial.
“We have to lockdown till the vaccine.” Denial, also.

Both these perspectives deny the impact of COVID in different ways. You can even be right on an issue, but in denial about the reaction to that issue. For example, even if you believe COVID is deadly, you can be in denial about the feasibility of lockdown or it’s impact on people’s lives and the economy. If you believe it’s not deadly, you can be in denial about it’s systemic impact on governments and society. Both these perspectives have some denial even if they are correct.

Knowing that these are the characters, what is the theme?

In most films, you want your characters to have an arc. If they start in one place, they must end up in the opposite. In January we started in maximum denial. Then crisis arrived as the antagonist. It began as fires in Australia and the trending hashtag #WW3. Now, it is a looming election. The purpose of the antagonist is to force the hero to grow or change. How has crisis forced you to grow this year?

To know where an arc is leading, look at it’s opposite. What is the opposite of denial? What would the maximum arc from that starting point be?

The maximum arc of denial is AWAKENING.

If your main character is in denial, the greatest way he could grow is to WAKE UP. Have there been some things we’ve been forced by crisis to “wake up” about in 2020? Crisis continues until the hero has their “massive midpoint moment” where they receive the change they need to return to the world.

The good news is that from a screenwriting perspective is if 2020 were a movie – and I’m not saying that this is a holographic reality, or that we live in a simulation and you’re a spiritual being having a physical experience designed to help you learn and grow – but if that were true, there would be no more need for crisis once you’d gotten the change you needed from this experience. Once our heroes WAKE UP, they no longer need crisis to force them to grow, and can integrate or defeat their antagonist.

If our heroes don’t wake up, there is the possibility for a darker ending, one in which the antagonist wins and there is maximum crisis and maximum denial. This could only be shown by the end of the world, met with denial. Do you feel like the world is ending? Not yet. But it does feel closer, doesn’t it? This is a good sign. Again, good screenwriting principles suggest that you want your heroes to experience a moment where it seems like all is almost lost and it’s “darkest before the dawn” before they finally breakthrough, change, and win. In an action film, this might be shown with the countdown on a bomb being finally stopped one second before going off. 2020 might be more subtle. But it might not.

By the way, those odd storylines that don’t seem to go anywhere? Those are clues. Those are places where crisis wasn’t met with denial. The murder hornets? No one was in denial about those. “Another crisis!” was the universal response to that story. No denial, so no need for that crisis to play out further.

(The UFO disclosure stuff published this year might be a gun being planted for the third act, but it was also a place where people lessened their denial. No huge crisis needed if you’re willing to wake up a little. But hey, go into denial, maybe you’ll get a crisis there too. Or take the gentler path.)

In summary:

If 2020 were a movie, it’s two primary characters would be crisis and denial, with the message for you to WAKE UP.

I wonder how many storylines this year you can see that fit this pattern? Maybe even some in your own life? If you were to know, where do you need to wake up now?

---

P.S. Part of my mission is to help people wake up through media. If you’d like to wake up, subscribe here.

A reader asks:

If parents regret having their sons circumcised, and would like to address it earlier in their life or speak with them openly about it, what should they do? Are there any modalities you’ve seen people try?

Great question.

First, anything you do as a parent must be centered on the needs of the child.

If parents feel guilty about a decision they made, talking to their kids could become about fixing the parent’s guilt rather than meeting the needs of the child. If you as a parent have feelings about something you did or allowed to happen, make sure you take care of those feelings as an adult, rather than unloading them on your child. Children aren’t responsible for processing their parent’s feelings, and learning about this issue will likely bring up feelings of their own they might need to process. In other words, secure your own healing first before trying to fix someone else.

Second, allow your child to have whatever feelings come up.

This is essential if you want to maintain your relationship with your child. Think about how you would feel if your spouse or partner allowed something similar to happen to you. You might be furious, sad, or even want a divorce. Children feel all the same things when their parents wrong them, but they cannot leave the relationship because of their dependent status. When children aren’t allowed to have certain feelings in relationship with their parents they either bury those feelings in their unconscious to come out in future relationships or break their relationship with their parents around those parts of themselves. Either way, if you want a relationship with your children, you have to make it safe for them to have all their feelings, including feelings of anger or upset directed at you.

What would you do if you wronged your spouse in a similar way? If you wanted to keep that relationship, you’d have to allow them to be mad at you or upset for as long as they need to be. If you allow the people in your life to have their feelings even when those feelings are not convenient or comfortable for you, then your relationships will grow stronger, including with your children. If your children know it is safe to be mad at you, and you are the kind of person who admits when you are in the wrong, then they will feel safe sharing the other things in the relationship that bother them, or coming to you when they have a problem, rather than just cutting off the relationship when they have the freedom to do so.

Third, listen to them, and give them whatever support they need.

This is difficult and might require expansion and growth for both of you. Right now, we do not have a way to fully repair the damage of circumcision. We also have a larger culture that does not recognize the damage that comes from genital cutting or offers resources for men who are harmed by it. However, broadly speaking the principles and healing methods that apply around other healing methods apply here. Non-violent communication and peaceful parenting methods can be useful when talking to your kids. Healing methods that work on physical trauma, sexual abuse, or childhood trauma can all help with the feelings around circumcision.

However, I want to caution parents against pushing these on their children. When a parent offers therapy of any kind for their kids, it can make the child feel like there is something wrong with them and their parents are trying to fix them. There is a danger of making your kids feel broken when they do not see themselves that way. Often, the parents feel like they made a mistake, and are trying to fix themselves through their kids. This is using the child the fulfill the adult’s needs, rather than centering whatever healing takes place on the child’s needs.

Imagine how you would feel if your spouse wronged you, and then tried to push you into therapy when you were mad at them about it. Yes, you might need therapy after being wronged in your relationship, but you wouldn’t want them to try to “fix” you, when they were the one at fault. If you offer support, it has to come with the frame that they are okay, they have the right to feel whatever they are feeling, and it is up to them to decide what they need. You as a parent can offer resources, but you have to respect the child’s response, or else we’d be crossing their boundaries and telling them there is something wrong with them again.

This is why it’s crucial for parents to do their own healing work. If some part of you allowed this to happen, then we need to heal that and process the feelings of guilt and grief that came from that decision. If you think your kids need healing but you don’t, remember who it was that made the mistake. Doing your own healing work will allow you to know what works and frame healing as something people normally do, rather than something they have to do because there is something wrong with them. Kids learn by watching their parents. Asking a child “would you like to talk to someone like mom does?” is a very different frame than “do we need to find someone to fix you because we screwed up so bad?”

In my own life, I’ve found the Completion Process, NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), somatic therapy, family constellations, and having a good listener to all be effective healing methods. (My fiance practices the first two, and you can find her here. She is the best healer I know.) If you ask any person who has done healing what works, you’ll get different answers, and almost all of them are valid for someone. However, any effective healing method will begin by validating the feelings of the person being healing, which is why it is so important to allow your kids to feel whatever they are feeling. If a healer invalidates your perspective or downplays this issue, they are not a healer and you should avoid them. Healing might reveal a new perspective, but it will meet you where you are at.

Keep in mind, your child might not feel they need anything. When I did my own healing work, I didn’t go looking for circumcision trauma. I had anger. I stayed with that anger until I found the source. So if your child doesn’t feel like talking about this issue, that’s okay. Support their healing where they decide to do it. That healing might lead to feelings around this issue, or it might not. It would be a mistake to treat this issue as a separate issue you can fix and be done with, rather than part of the relationship as a whole. Circumcision is based in thinking that you can “fix” one “separate” part of the body and it won’t impact the whole. Avoiding the same mistake will require shifting your thinking from trying to “fix” parts of your child to looking holistically at the whole relationship.

Hope that helps.

---

If this helped you, subscribe here. To learn more about the issue of circumcision, watch my documentary American Circumcision. If you’re interested in making a difference on the issue, read my book The Intactivist Guidebook.

Why do people in movements engage in infighting?

Infighting does not make logical sense. In my book, The Intactivist Guidebook, I show that no movement can win or achieve its goals without collaboration. This means that infighting or internal conflicts that decrease collaboration are detrimental to a movement’s goals. Yet, most movements have a lot of infighting. Why?

Rene Girard’s Theory

One explanation for this comes from French philosopher Rene Girard. Girard argued that we actually learn our desires by watching others, which he called mimetic desire. Mimetic desire is desire based on another, or desire modeled after or imitating the desires of others.

If you’ve ever had a child want what was on your plate rather than theirs, even when you made them an identical plate, you’ve seen this in action. The child does not just want food. They want to be like mom and dad. Wanting what is on mom or dad’s plate is an expression of this desire.

This mimetic desire continues throughout a person’s life. We see people we wish to emulate and desire to have what they have and become like them so we can have the same qualities. For example, if a young person admires a star athlete, they might think if they become like this person they will have the qualities they perceive this athlete has having (strength, popularity, social status, etc.).

Where this runs afoul is when this desire does not fulfill the qualities we think it will confer. For example, someone might wish to be a star athlete because of the pleasure they think it will bring but discovers that being an athlete actually means training every day. They are constantly busy and sore. Plus, there is steep competition for the role of “star athlete.” Not everyone can be the star, and many others are competing with them for the same desire. Stardom is a scarce resource.

When multiple people are competing for the same learned desire, a mimetic rivalry develops. There is potential for conflict or even violence. In order to prevent this violence, societies engage in scapegoating. Rather than everyone fighting for the same role, one person is chosen as the reason they cannot have it and destroyed. If one person wants a thing, there will soon be more. This mechanism of mimetic desire soon leads to many competitors, but it can also align many people to all mimetically desiring to destroy the same person. 

Scapegoating can also occur when the role or object of desire does not fulfill the qualities the person thought it would. In this case, the scapegoat is chosen as the reason this role was not fulfilling. For example, a person might go to college and get a high-paying job only to feel unfulfilled. Rather see that this was a learned mimetic desire, and the person might never have wanted to work in an office except that everyone around them told them this is what they should want, a scapegoat is chosen.

The scapegoat could be a person (ex: a boss or person in the office everyone hates) or it could be broader (ex: social systems such as “sexism”). The scapegoat could be a real problem, but what makes it a scapegoat is the idea that you would be happy with your mimetic desire is the scapegoat didn’t exist. For example, if a person makes sexism their scapegoat, this might be a real problem, yet they would still be unhappy working in an office even if no sexism existed if this desire does not actually confer the qualities they thought it did.

Girard and Movements

How does this relate to activism and movements? Most movements are learned mimetic desires. We are not born wanting to engage in activism. We see others taking action and learn the desire to do the same. Often this desire is born from a quality we believe becoming an activist will confer. (Ex: If I become an activist, I will be heard.)

However, if this desire does not produce results, people begin searching for a scapegoat. “I thought this would give me what I wanted, but it hasn’t. Who is to blame? Obviously not me. It must be someone else…” And the search for the scapegoat is born.

Often, this scapegoating will focus on people who seem fulfilled in the same desire we sought. If the desire is seen as a scarce resource and someone else has it, then it follows that them having fulfillment means you have less. If you can destroy their fulfillment then there will be more for the rest. This is how movements often tear down their most successful figures.

Yet, there is a lie here. Fulfillment is not a scarce resource. It is abundant. In fact, the more success you have in a movement, the more potential for collaboration exists, and by extension the closer the movement is to victory.

What makes something a movement is when many people desire the same thing and work together for that desire. When many people all desire to write books in the same style, you have a literary movement. When many people all desire to make films in the same style, you have a cinematic movement. When many people all desire the same social change, you have a social movement. These desires are not scarce but amplified the more people share them.

This scarcity mindset probably goes back to our hunter-gather days in which food was a scarce resource. Yet, most of what people desire now is not scarce. If I write a book, it does not mean you cannot write a book. The process is still the same, regardless of however many people have written books before us.

Lessons From Girard

How can we apply this theory to movements to reduce infighting?

First, infighting tends to occur more between people who are alike rather than different. That might seem counterintuitive, but it makes sense with Girard’s theory. If two people both identify as the “filmmaker person” of a movement, and one perceives this as a scarce resource, then they might engage in infighting with the person they perceive as their mimetic rival. However, if filmmaking is not a scarce resource, then the logical action would be for them to align, collaborate, and create a cinematic movement.

(This is my way of saying I want there to be more films on the movements I’m involved in. Think about how many documentaries there on food or climate change. This is not a scarce resource. There should be just as many on other important issues.)

As a practical example, I noticed when I went from being a filmmaker to writing about activism, a few people who identified as “activism person” in the movement I was writing about that had been previously supportive of my work became passive-aggressive before even reading the book. They felt that by writing about activism I was entering their mimetic turf. A few even suggested that if I knew so much about activism I should start my own organization.

Of course, if I did start my own group I would really be entering a mimetic rivalry with them, especially if the group was identical to theirs in style or branding. They do not actually want me to do this. Instead, they perceived my desire as taking away the scarce resource of their activism. This attitude was part of what my book was trying to address. The primary advice of the book was “if you’re interested in activism, you should organize groups and collaborate with others.” For anyone trying to organize, this message is helpful, but for those in scarcity thinking, it’s perceived rivalry.

Second, if you run an organization this principle suggests that you should give people different roles. Billionaire Peter Theil has said that Girard’s book Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World is his favorite and in interviews has said he has used Girard’s thinking in startups to make sure every person has a different role. If you have an organization, there might be infighting and conflict if everyone has the same role, but if one is the “social media person” and another is the “event organizing person,” then they have different desires and roles and are not in conflict.

Third, if you are successful, you should know that the people most likely to try to scapegoat or “cancel” you will be those who are less successful in the same field and bitter about it. Yes, this even applies to movements for social justice causes. You could win victories for people, and they might still engage in backstabbing because they perceive your success as a threat to their own. This is scarcity thinking, and you should treat these people like they have a terminal COVID-19 or a zombie bite, and quarantine them from you or anything you’re involved with.

Fourth, pursue blue oceans. Blue oceans is a concept that comes from the book Blue Ocean Strategy to describe untapped markets or entirely new ideas. Red oceans are areas where competition already exists. For example, if I was to launch a soft drink, I would be competing in the red ocean of a market that is already full of options. If I created a new health drink using a rare herb no one had heard of before, I would be creating a new category I owned or blue ocean.

The same logic applies to books, films, businesses, activist organizations, etc. If pursue a desire many have already fulfilled, you might be entering a red ocean. Instead, look at the underlying desire behind your desire. What are you hoping this desire will fulfill? What qualities do you think it will confer? If you were to pursue those qualities directly, what might you see instead?

Remember, infighting occurs between groups that are alike, not different. If you differentiate, you can avoid this infighting. Instead of saying “I want to create something like that,” look for something no one has ever done before. This will requires greater creativity but offers a greater reward.

(By the way, you can still do things others have done if you do them in a new way. I’m not the first person to write a book or make a film, but the projects I’ve made have been new in their category. I could still start an organization following this advice as well, as long as instead duplicating an existing organization, I created new in a unique space only I could fulfill.)

Finally, Girard’s theory asks us to examine our desires. What are you hoping the things you desire will bring you? Do you really want what you want or have you learned your desires from others? What do you authentically want?

---

P.S. Many people want my work and say it has changed their lives. If you want the same desirable change, check out my work here and subscribe to my email list here.

A Jewish reader of The Intactivist Guidebook writes:

I read the chapter on Opposition. It was a little hard for me to follow.

…

I tried so hard to apply your advice to the organized Jewish forces in my head, but I could not succeed, it was too complicated. They are too powerful. They have this huge advantage that they can call anyone, such as Iceland, anti-semitic for eg working to outlaw circumcision in their non-circumcising country. The fear of being called anti-semitic is the most powerful toxic force on the planet imo. Please give us a clear directive for how to defeat them!

I’ve edited the message a bit, but this was my reply:

If the Opposition chapter was hard to follow, let me try swapping real-world political groups for a more absurd situation:

Suppose you are part of a high school clique of mean girls. You want to get rid of a girl who is prettier than you because she might steal your boyfriend. How would you get rid of her?

One way is that you could approach her and tell her not to look at your boyfriend. If you were to do things the masculine way, you’d beat her up. But this is a clique of toxic mean girls. If you did that, you’d be seen as insecure, and everyone would know you think she is prettier than you. What would you do?

Well, the toxic mean girl way would be to spread a rumor about her. Tell everyone something about her that would lower her status (Ex: “slut”). Of course, you wouldn’t tell her directly. In fact, you might never have a conversation with the prettier girl. You might not even tell her friends. You’d tell your friends who are friends of her friends.

This way, what happens is: you tell your friend, who tells her friends, who stop hanging out with her. Now she has no friends and is unpopular, and your boyfriend won’t even see her at the parties where he might leave you for her because she doesn’t get invited.

This girl – if she is not socially savvy – might protest that the rumor is untrue. Many people might know that she is not a “slut” or whatever you’ve said about her – but they don’t want to be seen sitting at the table of an unpopular girl, lest they be seen as unpopular too.

If you saw this beautiful girl who was all alone, unpopular, destroyed by rumors, who could not get anyone to sit with her or invite her to parties, what would you tell her to do?

This is basically the process that opposition groups run when they fight Intactivists. They spread a rumor (“anti-Semite”) to their friends (coalition groups – politicians, media, etc.) who tell our friends (the public, audiences, platforms, businesses, parents) who stop being friends with us because they don’t want to be seen sitting at the unpopular table (associating with “racists”).

It’s just that their friends have a lot of reach. They are – in this analogy – an upperclassman who knows everyone, while we are a new transfer student freshman. I think the impossibility of this task that you feel is the relative difference in resources. The difference is so great that this girl even knows the faculty. There are even rumors about her that she secretly runs the school. Tough situation!

You could say ‘well, just don’t worry about it – you only want to be friends with people who see you for who you are anyway!’ – but this ignores the bullying, the unfair treatment, and the missed opportunities from not being invited places.

It also ignores the fact that the pretty girl can’t even get decent people to be friends with her because they are afraid of retaliation from the upperclassmen mean girl. She is so well connected friends of hers might attack your friends, just to prove their loyalty to her. The prettier girl would not only need friends who see her – she’d need friends you are so brave and loyal they are willing to stand up to the bullying of well-connected and more popular students.

What my book advises is to first build a coalition of likely allies. In this analogy, it would be the other people who would likely be your friend and don’t care what the popular girls call you. Maybe this is other people she has ostracized, been unfair to, people who just don’t care what she thinks. Maybe this is people who are naturally going to like you for who you are. But you want a circle of friends outside her influence. In the book, I give a list of likely allies, but I’m sure you can name more.

Second, you have to make sure you are your friends are aligned. You know that your opposition will spread rumors about them too. Plus, you and your friends might fight because that’s what friends do. High school girls are not known for their lack of drama, and political movements are even worse. I talk about this in Chapter 6: Needs and Chapter 7: Allies. You and your friends work together and don’t devolve into your own mean-girls drama where you just spread rumors about each other.

(Side-note: Every time you see activists engaged in infighting over petty drama, just imagine mean girls fighting over who is prettier. It is much funnier and does more to further the goals of the movement than infighting does.)

To avoid infighting, you might have to integrate, align, and heal your own insecurities. For example, suppose in our analogy a girl ever prettier than both girls agrees to help our social outcast become popular. Are you too insecure to work with her? What if you catch your man looking at her? You could get rid of her to fulfill your own need to be the prettiest, but it won’t get you closer to the goal of popularity. Having the prettiest girl on your side would help, but to work with her, you’ll have to get over your own ego.

Once you have your group, you work your way up. Say you want something she controls. Let’s say the yearbook editor is her friend. What points of leverage do you have to take that? Can you split their friendship with a rumor of your own? Can you make friends on the yearbook and get your agenda through anyway? Can you get leverage by talking to the yearbook advertisers who don’t go to your school and she has no power over?

This is an analogy, but you see the process. You’re not looking to get her. You’re looking to get everyone to stop sitting at her table. You want to make it so that if she won’t invite someone to her parties it isn’t social death and in fact that there is a social cost to being her friend. This will take time, but this girl has spread a lot of rumors about a lot of people, and many are starting to realize this is just a social tactic she uses against people she doesn’t like.

Of course, you’re talking to someone who never played these games in high school and just sat with the band kids, video production crew, and goths. But I always found goth girls hotter, so maybe I had a strategy of my own.

---

Read The Intactivist Guidebook for yourself here, because all the popular kids and pretty girls love it.