pseudo-philosophical drivel about radicalization and subjectivity

Radicalization is but a dysphemism for uncompromising individuation, and society can not tolerate uncompromising individuation because by the point it has become manifest and begins to work for its own completion, accumulating with every second larger and larger other authorities, destructivity and hostility has outgrown all possible negotiation, and has engaged the proprietors of it with ardour, spine and strong-willed discipline... the need for purging becomes stronger than even the want for social communion, and even yet, it threatens to overwash it, as if flood-waves over crops and pastures along the river-bank... yes, that is why radicalization is treated as if a pest, even though it is merely by definition an explosion of subjective potential, of hyper-individuality... for many a folk it sounds great, and it feels good on the tongue, this individuality and this uniqueness, but many a folk indeed do not understand what real individuality and real uniqueness would unleash - neither do I, and that is the point! To treat it as if benevolent in nature, just we love and just we are free and jolly enough, is to poke a hideous beast which sleeps in the secrecy of night! But you, you become instead jubilant and optimistic about this, rather than to feel the fear and trembling you perhaps ought to feel, maybe atleast in part, about this great inward and personal revolution, this fission between man and woman, between state and individual, between class and class, between race and race, the segregation of societies, cultures, ethnicites into fractal nuclei of a billion exponentially fragmentizing and separating entitites...listen - I am not an opponent of this development, I am not against it per se, not at all, but I need scolding you for your idealism, for this is your monumental delusion and this is the Polaris by which you compass your travels and journeys.. and, worse yet, you have even managed to find somewhere within you the audacity and the self-confidence to even suggest, and promote, and outlive this unbound individuality yourself, as if a pioneer of filth and debauchery, and you sell it as if a product on some shelf somewhere, as if an essence of aether trapped, captured like a ship in a flask of glass... you say, as if on the corner of some dirty street: come now with me, come now and consume me, fuck me,  feed me; laugh and shiver with me until I die... food, sex, sleep, death - is this the dream of yours? Then package it as if an ideology, good luck... surely this cowardly way out of the underworld must stink up these grottos and caverns with the fogginess of human weakness... but yes, you go on and get out there like the whore you are, sell it, your faux individuality which you have sugared with a coating of hedonism and gluttony as to lure the youth and the children to it... I have never before heard of such an abuse of the coming generations! Let me tell you: when society claims for its citizens the freedom of expression, and even urges its population to make the best use of it, it comes with a tremendous caveat, yes, for we are free to express our individuality but only until it becomes dangerous for the other, which is a suffocating limitation for the courageous one: you may only push so far... and that is why this piece of judicial nomenclature itself, this freedom of expression, the abomination of demagoguery, is an intellectually dishonest phraseology at best, and an outright fucking deceit at worst! Do you value honesty? Then, by all means, anabaptize it, rename it, rebrand it... yes, perhpas it ought to be called what it really is, instead of what it failingly aspires to become... but what is it then, in honesty, in reality? I would say, a tolerance for certain mild expressions of shallower, greyer, more colourless and more timid variables of personality. Something like that. That is the true face of this freedom of expression you talk and talk about... but your freedom of expression is an artificial fabrication created outside of the actual human experience of it, for it tolerates not expressive freedom in extremis, rather it promotes a hoax of individuality, as if a mind-trick - it is just a fancy concept, a judicial term, a socio-cultural empty value of the herd, mostly unnoticed, unused, under-appreciated, discarded as taken for granted...  but yeah, I suppose you may throw your freedoms under the bus as you wish, that is your decision to make, but what I want to say is that freedom of expression in its most honest and honorific emobodiment would mean the same as radicalization to the point of even becoming interchangeable in terms of phrase - and this is something which every sophisticated society ought not to tolerate... and we might ask ourselves then,why no tolerance for it? Indeed, for the sake of its own prosperous growth into the future! But heed though, every one of these societies, aspiring to this idealistic falsarium of utopia, wherein flowering individuality hugs with love the unhinged and unrestrained gluttony of sex and pleasure... for this reason alone, heed, yes, that the beasts of radicality hunt at night, and yes, these wolves whom hunt the lamb and the cattle in the outlands do so not for the sake of food but for the sake of uncompromising individuation at the behest of others innocence, which is uproar against all, the only logical conclusion of individuation in extremis, and which becomes in essence radicalization: yes, radicalization is but a dysphemism for uncompromising individuation.