“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in.”

I said I wouldn’t write about Gamergate again, and three weeks ago I honestly thought I wouldn’t, but recent events, especially Mattie Brice’s resignation from the IGF judging panel over a series of light-hearted jokes, have encouraged me to make a comparison which I have been considering for a while – namely, the rise of the UK Independence Party (and, to a lesser extent, the Republican Party in America, though I confess I know less of their recent history) and how they manage to attract people from differing ends of the political spectrum, united by a single goal – hatred of opponents.

I promise I will get to the point on how this relates to Gamergate, but first, a small history lesson. For the uninitiated, the UK Independence Party was formed in 1993 by members of the Anti-Federalist League, a cross-party group opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union. While it started out as an apolitical movement, primarily aimed at curbing EU infringements on democracy, just four years later, its initial leader, Alan Sked, would resign, claiming that it contained members who “[were] racist and [had] been infected by the far-right”. In the general elections later that year it was overshadowed by James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, who campaigned on a similar pro-democracy platform with regards to the EU – though ultimately neither gained any seats.

It is possible that UKIP would have disappeared, or remained in rank ignorance, were it not for Goldsmith’s death, which meant that the Referendum Party was dissolved. While the Referendum Party had campaigned on a platform of giving people the chance to vote over Britain’s EU membership, pledging to stand by the result, UKIP had been firmly opposed to it from the start. The split of the Referendum Party’s vote was, naturally, beneficial to UKIP. Gaining the sympathies of moderates, it then took its first seats in the European Parliament in 1999.

At this point, UKIP have grown to be the fourth-biggest party in Britain, to the extent where their leader, Nigel Farage, is set to appear in the TV debates for the upcoming general election alongside the usual trio of Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative parties. It is not hard to see why. While British votes often take place along party lines, with constituencies remaining rigidly fixed in place, UKIP’s support base has managed to transcend such party lines, though it mainly contains three main groups of people:

1) Rich right-wing business leaders (frequently former donors of the centre-right Conservative Party) who approve of their free market principles.

2) Libertarians of all political spectra, who oppose the EU’s authoritarian nature.

3) A growing base of working class support, often poached from the centre-left Labour party, who approve of their hardline stance on immigration.

A strange mixture of groups, and yet, one that feels united in its goals. While the principle is not identical, we can see similar groups of people mobilising in the Gamergate movement: the social conservative, who opposes feminist ideals; the moderate, who seeks out breaches of journalistic integrity; and the “ordinary consumer”, who wants to be allowed to enjoy games. It is, in terms of make-up at the very least, a somewhat broad movement, even if its actions turn out universally conservative. How can this be?

The answer lies in the link between the three groups: disenfranchisement.

“Alone — free — the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures.”

One of UKIP’s biggest claims is that they’re different from other political parties. This was a tactic used by Alex Salmond in the recent Scottish independence referendum as well. Westminster politicians are out of touch with what real people want, always dithering and dallying. UKIP, on the other hand, can get things done – whether you’re a rich business leader who wants out of the EU so there’s fewer trade restrictions or an ordinary bloke who works a 40-hour week and just doesn’t want so many of those bloody immigrants. Vote UKIP and get some real change in Parliament.

Gamergate, as you may expect, has this aspect too. It’s the reason why a scandal with roots in journalistic ethics can continue to cite debunked stories about the IGF. Because, ultimately, there are different factions fighting for different things, but they are all linked by the same fear: that journalists, or developers, no longer speak for them; taking isolated examples of corruption or abuse and taking them as representative of all journalists, or symptomatic of the problem with all indie developers, not out of misunderstanding – but out of fear.

“The rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”

Gamergate and UKIP have both formed around fears, and, more to the point, they are fears which appeal to a wide base. The (debunked) story that Zoe Quinn was sleeping with Nathan Grayson for favourable review coverage appeals on multiple levels: the shock of corruption to the reader’s terror of being duped, the sexually promiscuous woman to the reader’s own dread of being cheated on or having their significant other stolen. UKIP, likewise, cry out against the EU’s freedom of movement laws, whether it be because they infringe upon UK sovereignty, a sign of totalitarianism, or because they bring over immigrants, the “other” who don’t belong in this country.

All of these fears are based on prior assumptions – that politicians, or journalists, are opposed to their constituents/audience. When Gamergate supporters talk about the “roots” of the backlash being formed prior to Eron Gjoni’s blog post, such as in responses to the Retake Mass Effect movement, this is usually what they mean: a belief that there was no longer a voice in the media to speak up for them; as outsiders were invading, they felt abandoned. So, when they got a chance, they fought back.

“If he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.”

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of both Gamergate and UKIP is the way in which people willingly assimilate their identities to support them. UKIP’s making a song and dance of their minority supporters, chiefly to defend themselves from accusations of bigotry, has a blatant parallel in the #NotYourShield hashtag, as supporters place their identity as Gamergate supporters ahead of the toxic elements elsewhere in the movement (including members who use them as a literal shield against criticism). This is also one of the reasons that Gamergate is so keen to disassociate itself from harassment – it is not individuals, it is a movement, their ideals, the bigger picture are more important.

The fact that a movement is obviously made up of individual people is irrelevant. So is the fact that individual prominent figures within the movement focus on any particular aspect – the more important factors lie underneath. It’s not about immigration, it’s about dissatisfaction with Westminster. It’s not about feminism, it’s about gaming journalism. This makes it remarkably easy for astro-turfers to come in – UKIP’s first leader was a millionaire; Gamergate was weaponised in various different places, with Stormfront and r/RedPill suggesting it could be used to raise the issues of Jewish conspiracies and men’s rights activism respectively; all about directing the discussion in a way that suits them, building their own support base.

And the reason they’re so easy to turn is that they don’t, in any meaningful sense, stand for anything. It has always been beneficial for cultures to have an opponent by which to define themselves against – Aeschylus relied on it in his play The Persians, in which the effeminate, luxurious Persians are clearly intended to contrast with the undefined, scattered Greeks. But recent times have warped the idea beyond recognition. UKIP claim to be ‘pro-Britain’ but are frequently called out on their lack of actual policies; Gamergate cites ‘journalistic ethics’ with little understanding of how they have actually hurt that very cause. They are defined solely by their enemies; a reaction to the threat of the outsider.

“During the Two Minutes Hate she always excelled all others in shouting insults at Goldstein. Yet she had only the dimmest idea of who Goldstein was and what doctrines he was supposed to represent.”

This is why Gamergate supporters frequently compile lists of enemies to mock and discredit, just as the Party does in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is easier to target rage at an opponent than to answer questions about one’s own motivations; hence the mockery and harassment of Anita Sarkeesian which continues to this very day. Gamergate’s opponents are dehumanised as “shills” or “trolls” (and it is very telling that many in a movement that considers death threats “just trolling” also refer to their opponents by that same word); Gamergate supporters are told not to engage with them, out of fear that their ideologies might change.

Gamergate prides itself on being something big, something unstoppable, because it then does not have to answer questions about its more problematic aspects. I said on Twitter earlier today that having a Gamergate Harassment Patrol is rather like having a UKIP “bigotry patrol” – it may mean well but ultimately it simply papers over the cracks, ignoring the fact that many within the movement do not understand what harassment actually is, but nevertheless benefit from it when it suits them. It is impossible to shut anything down within a movement that has it as one of its core ideals.

“In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.”

The reason why I find this the most concerning aspect of these two movements is something that I touched on above – Gamergate encourages its supporters not to engage with opponents. This traps people in an echo chamber, where Gamergate controls the narrative. John “TotalBiscuit” Bain, possibly the most prominent supporter of Gamergate, recently took issue with what he called “revisionist history” of the movement. But in so doing, he has been accused of the same himself. To an individual who seeks Gamergate as an identity, who is personally attached to the movement, the perception of Gamergate is all that matters; it is why Gamergate supporters are so keen to disassociate themselves from harassment not because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes Gamergate look bad. Removing their ability to see multiple perspectives makes them more likely to associate with the one nearest to them.

And this is ultimately a message – movements like Gamergate, which are reactionary, and which people devolve key decisions about their identity to – are the most dangerous of all because once they start they are very difficult to stop. Calling a UKIP supporter a bigot will not weaken their resolve, only intensify it, because they see themselves as part of something bigger, but more importantly, they do not believe themselves to be a bigot. They are anti-immigration, but not racist, even when UKIP use posters like this. It is the same with Gamergate and harassment, misogyny, conservatism – any adjective you can give it, it will not only be deflected back, but it will actively strengthen their resolve, because, regardless of the reasons for it, they are hurting and they see Gamergate as the only people supporting them – and that’s worrying when those people then go on the attack, dragging the wounded with them.

“‘It is impossible to found a civilization on fear and hatred and cruelty. It would never endure.’

‘Why not?’

‘It would have no vitality. It would disintegrate. It would commit suicide.’

‘Nonsense. You are under the impression that hatred is more exhausting than love. Why should it be?'”

It is a sad truth that Gamergate will never go away. UKIP will never go away. Hatred never does. They might reform under different names, as with people who use “NatSoc” as a hideous cipher, but ultimately, the truly hateful will survive, and find an audience. It is the sad truth of our existence. But the least that we can all do is not make it worse; not encourage others who have made mistakes to follow the worst people, for it is in that the worst excesses of human history occur. Reach out to people, if you can, rather than putting them down. Hatred – whether it’s political, apolitical, or actually about ethics in games journalism – should not be met with hatred in response. It can only be counterproductive.

Quotations taken from Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, published in the UK by Penguin Classics.