The Power of Manipulation: A Reflection on Society’s Swayability
When I watched this moment in The Fall of the House of Usher, as horrific, dark, and gruesome as the storyline is, this monologue hit home, and I had that "Aha" moment: Oh, so that’s how they did it!
The Fall of the House of Usher is about a corrupt family, who are the founders of a fictional pharmaceutical conglomerate, whom meet their grotesque ends; as retribution for their ill-gotten gains. In a chilling scene, the father confides with unsettling ease how people can be completely manipulated to believe anything. This dialogue demonstrates how both charasmatic individuals and companies, devoid of any genuine concern for the public, can amass millions by strategically swaying public perception. It begins with something as simple as a lemon and ends with the complete takeover of cultural norms and consumer habits.
“When life hands you lemons, make lemonade?” No. First, you roll out a multimedia campaign to convince people lemons are incredibly scarce. This only works if you stockpile lemons, control the supply, and then launch a media blitz. Soon, lemons are the only way to say “I love you,” the must-have accessory for engagements or anniversaries. Roses are out; lemons are in. Billboards proclaim that she won’t have sex with you unless you’ve got lemons. You cut De Beers in on it. Limited edition lemon bracelets, yellow diamonds called lemon drops. Apple releases their new operating system, OS-Lemón, with a little accent over the “o.” Organic lemons are priced 40% higher, conflict-free lemons 50% more. You flood the Capitol with lemon lobbyists, get a Kardashian to suck a lemon wedge in a leaked sex tape, and Timothée Chalamet wears lemon shoes at Cannes. The hashtag #lemon goes viral. Something isn’t “cool”; it’s “lemon.” Billie Eilish tweets, “OMG, hashtag… lemon.” Dr. Oz recommends four lemons a day and a lemon suppository to get rid of toxins—because there’s nothing scarier than toxins. Then you patent the seeds, alter the DNA to make lemons look just a little more like tits, and sue farmers for copyright infringement when that genetic code shows up on their land. Sit back, rake in the millions, and when you’re done, and you’ve sold your lem-pire for a few billion dollars, then, and only then, you make some fucking lemonade.”
This satirical monologue might sound absurd, yet it’s eerily similar to the global acceptance of gender ideology, which has worked to change language, tolerance, and redefine "biology."
Today, we find ourselves in a world where even truth is up for sale. Not long ago, the idea that a man could be a woman or a woman could be a man was completely unthinkable and considered absolute insanity. Yet now, like the establishment of the lemon empire, we see that with clever marketing, societal pressures, and public shaming, these ideas are not just accepted but often fiercely defended.
Is the shift in favor of gender ideology and its beliefs and values a result of genuine societal evolution, or are we merely conduits of a well-orchestrated propaganda machine? Are we being swayed by a small but vocal group of extremists, pushed into silence by the threat of being labeled intolerant or bigoted?
If we are merely conduits of a well-orchestrated propaganda machine, easily swayed by vocal extremists and too pressured, coerced, and manipulated to feel safe speaking the truth—that men are not women and women cannot be men—how did we get here? How did we find ourselves falling for such a lie?
I remember the first time I encountered a "transgender" person. It was 2005, and I was at university. Richard, a lecturer who had "transitioned" from being a middle aged, mild mannered man walked passed me wearing high heels, a wig, dress, and bad lippy and now claimed to be a 'woman' called 'Rachel'. I remember shuddering, I felt unsafe, it was funny but icky too. But there was a sense of simply going along with it, a collective decision to politely accept this eccentric lecturer's change without much discussion. Who could have foreseen how such accommodation would allow for a complete shift in reality and bring with it a collapse to single-sex spaces, the destruction of lesbian communities, and the pervasive push of callous and dangerous ideologies into schools?
The scale of change and the intensity of the reaction to those who question it have surprised many of us. How did ideas that were beyond absurd a few decades ago gain so much traction, momentum, and influence?
If we had been more aware back then, perhaps we would have spoken up sooner when issues like access to women’s spaces first emerged. Yet, at the time, we took the stance of being accommodating and polite, not realizing where these concessions might lead. Over time, this movement has skillfully capitalized on society’s empathy and goodwill, turning virtues like tolerance and inclusiveness into tools for promoting an agenda that undermines the foundations of sex-based rights.
This strategy wasn’t built overnight; it started decades ago with figures like that father from The Fall of the House of Usher. Martine Rothblatt, was a founding individual in these gender wars, he published works in the 1990s advocating for the abolition of traditional concepts of sex. Rothblatt, who calls himself a woman, envisions a future where humans integrate with machines. It was his bizarre ideas that planted the "lemon" seeds of today’s ideological battles.
Rothblatt’s financial influence cannot be ignored. With vast resources, he’s been able to manipulate the masses and build a global platform that promotes these erroneous ideas, funding and biasing research, founding pharmaceutical companies that profit from gender-affirming surgeries, and shaping public discourse. His backing extends to media, celebrities, and even governments, which promote this ideology while suppressing dissent.
Women who dare to speak out—like J.K. Rowling—are met with unparalleled, harsh backlash and labeled ‘TERFs.’ So, the fear of being publicly shamed or ostracized has kept many others silent.
The drive for ever more inclusion hasn’t stopped, either. Schools are under pressure to conform, and incentives like ACON's Australian Workforce Equity Index are increasingly used to ensure institutional and individual conformity.
The isolation brought on by COVID-19 only accelerated the spread of these ideas, with people spending more time online and being bombarded with messages that normalize and celebrate the most extreme forms of radical gender identity.
In this environment of global isolation, it’s easy to see how people began to feel swayed to adopt beliefs they would never have considered before, in order to feel included in an imagined community that promises acceptance and belonging—yet only through self-mutilation, castration and rejection of one's name, history, story, and family.
But in truth, it’s less about genuine inclusivity and more about creating lifelong consumers of products and services tied to gender identity.
Now, 30 years later, it’s becoming harder to voice dissenting opinions. Can we still have honest conversations about these issues? Will the truth prevail in an environment where dissent is met with hostility? Can we return to a place where fundamental boundaries are respected, rather than continually eroded?
These are challenging questions, but they deserve careful consideration. At what point do we, as a society, pause and critically examine the ideas we’re being forced to accept? Are we genuinely convinced, or simply too afraid to speak out against a narrative that’s been constructed for us?
Ultimately, the power of manipulation lies not just in those who wield it, but in our willingness to be led astray.
While the story of the lemon empire might be fictional, its lessons are very real. As we navigate today’s complexities, it’s more important than ever to remain vigilant, question the narratives that shape our lives, and recognize when we’re being sold a lemon. If we don’t question the gender narrative, no doubt, just as The House of Usher crumbled to the ground, all institutions that promoted this absurd concept will meet the same fate.
"Biological reality isn’t bigotry, and truth doesn’t change just because it’s unpopular. Even if social media, companies, and media outlets push a different story, facts remain facts. And holding onto that truth, with clarity and conviction, is vital!."
—Mel Day, 2024
Comments