I have come to the realisation that I, like countless others, was following the wrong track in terms of ‘majorities’.
I assumed that it was wrong for a majority to rule over a minority (fool that I was). In complete misjudgement of the realities that include the historical component.
It is less about the active, ill-intentioned ‘domination’ of majorities over minorities, but rather about a self-evident - as a matter of such - way of life.
There is a striking difference between
- people consciously choosing a traditional lifestyle or
- imposing it on others in a sick manner.
This significant difference has been submerged by the spread of regressive ideas.
It is not the conservatives who have forced minorities in all cases to live as they do.
They certainly used force when individuals (and minors - LoL) stepped out of the model to discipline them for the reason that the rest of their own crowd shall not be lured into go overboard with extraordinary life-styles themselves. To keep things in balance.
It was the minorities, those who wanted - and want - to make the exceptions the rule, who used force towards a (former, or still, it depends) majority to accept their way of life as the 'only true one'.
But there is no substance to this lifestyle. Since these minorities are fragmentary in themselves and do not have overall unity. Their demands and self-empowerment are full of contradictions. They do not have a coherent model of how to live together in a vast community of peoples. They can't, isn't that obvious?
The fact that they are labelled ‘progressives’ is already wrong.
It is more accurate to describe their ideas as regressive, because their behaviour reverts to childish patterns and regresses.
I left a comment on a youtube-commentator who said that ...
while he condemns the Democratic Party's focus on identity politics as divisive and lacking substance, Thiel supports Republican strategies that similarly appeal to specific identities—like nationalism and traditional values—that can alienate minority groups. Engaging in identity-based strategies while criticizing others reflects a contradictory stance.
I answered:
'I have questions and points for you on the subject of "national identity" and "traditional lifestyle":
I. how is it even possible to divide people over national affiliation when there are national physical borders? If you take the so-called national identity, you are primarily talking about a fact that was considered normality until regressive ideas spread this normality as something to be deeply rejected.
So the first question I have to ask you is:
are you in favour of a nation having physical borders?
Is it correct that if a country has a physical border, that people who cross that border do so in two ways:
a.) legally
b.) illegally
Or do you wish for a ‘world without borders’? If yes, how realistic is this wish and what dangers does it harbour? If not, why not?
II. to compare the strategies, feels a bit off to me, since the strategy to appeal to traditional values indeed has substance, I find.
These are generally successful life models (exceptions prove the rule - at least that's how it used to be): Keeping the family high, surviving family conflicts without division and lifelong marriage involving both young and old generations are life models that fare better (more successful) in comparison with other life models.
Virtues such as honesty, honour and adherence to Christian principles (do not steal, do not lie, do not kill, etc.) are not values that are rejected by both the left and the right, but are accepted by the overwhelming majority of the population as a whole. Regardless of whether they call themselves Christians or not. Agreed?
I see your argument that tradition and nationalism ‘can alienate minorities’ as a very weak argument.
These minorities have alienated themselves and said goodbye to the traditional; they could have decided to choose a traditional way of life themselves at any time.
Ask a conservative which way of life he thinks is better and he will tell you by painting a positive picture. The minorities are completely wrong-footed if they perceive the previous majority as ‘wrong in their way of life’, but strangely want to get married, start a family, even demand it as ‘their right’. Why actually? If they consciously reject tradition, why do they want to claim the institution of marriage for themselves, for example? Especially as these minorities are not united in this themselves.
The minority is dependent on a stable majority because it gives them the security of knowing how the world around them works.
However, when the tipping point is reached and the previous majority is reduced to less than half of the people in a country who lead a conservative life, this is bad for everyone - including minorities - because it leads to major human crises when stable majorities can no longer be formed.
This potentially leads to stagnation, inability to act, regression and civil war. We are currently seeing this unfold in my country: Germany. We have reached the point of inability to act and (are in severe) regression-mode.'
End of my comment.
My conclusion is
that a majority is urgently needed and a country that finds itself in the situation of not being able to find one is condemning itself to failure.
The misleading view that within such a majority no deviating models of life are tolerated leads to the radical view that one must fight what has offered stability. Because this stability has been misunderstood as oppressive. The opposite is the case, as explained above.
However, the decision to choose a non-traditional lifestyle with the aspiration to live without cost is the real problem.
If you want to be free to live contrary to the habits of (most) people, you have to be prepared to deal with this freedom. The costs are:
- The social environment turns up its nose; in other words, one's own popularity in that environment suffers, you are insulted more, not less!
- Certain privileges are no longer granted
- Certain disadvantages manifest themselves
On the other hand, there is the benefit of leading a life and an everyday routine that, because it is outside the norm, definitely finds a niche and patrons and interest, even economic success. You got to be talented for that.
But those who want both: to retain their social esteem AND to lead an exclusive life are trapped in regression.
The proverbial in the term ‘exclusivity’ already says it all:
if you exclude yourself, it is paradoxical to demand that you remain included in all respects.
You certainly will stay included in some remaining important ones. Since nobody in modern Western civilisations kills, physically punishes, tortures or throws people in prison if they exclude themselves from the traditional lifestyle.
It's the other way round:
it's the few birds of paradise who form an exclusive club that make the difference.
Not the many. They would never stand out as special characters and artists, as different and positive, if they continued to belong to the traditional ‘club’.
Their lives may be tough and full of hardship, but who is to say that it is not the same for those who choose a conservative life?
It's the conservatives who value their Christian and traditional roots who allow the misfits (in a positive way) to be the exceptions from the rules.
But those who take undue advantage of this tolerance will eventually create tough opponents who,
because it is necessary, will take the watered-down rules back to their roots and enforce them. This time through far harsher disciplinary measures than some conservatives themselves would like.
We see that happening in the US. Don't be mistaken. The so called minorities have built themselves a power structure beyond belief. It's about time to counteract.
watch:
