Liberals Believe in Universal Values, Conservatives Believe in Fundamental Values

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the great divide:

— this is the social schism that has been around since the dawn of civilisation, and it ain’t going away any time soon.

People will not get along, never ever, ever. This idea I keep reading that the conservatives will eventually die makes me laugh hysterically and at the same time makes me want to emigrate to Mars. And I just love Earth, you gotta, I mean this whole water thing, breathable air and warm sun are really neat.

But, like, I don’t know how to say this, folks, we’re always gonna be pitted against each other, unless we go on and relapse into full genocidal/eugenics mode … again.

It’s simple.

Fundamental values are those concepts that make up reality.

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist, says the Wiki

Take for instance, the fundamental values of democratic US politics: fairness, equality, responsibility, freedom, integrity, security. These are values shared between the entire spectrum of politicians.

Why are they shared? Because they are fundamental, that is, they have been around since forever and we can’t imagine a future without them. We used these concepts to base the great human construction we call The World on a strong enough foundation to hold hundreds of civilisations, each new one built on top of the ruins of the previous one.

Now comes the tricky part.

Universal values are those concepts that make up our internal representation of reality.

Reality is the same, but what we make of it, well that is another thing: it is culture.

[Culture] is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”, Wikipedia informs.

As you see, when we take reality, everything that ever was, is or will be, all the things that persist beyond presence, and we internalise them, that is we integrate their existence into our existence, reality becomes abstract: art, morals, law, custom etc.

It is here at a cultural level where universal values begin to take shape:

Schwartz’s ten types of universal value are: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security, a quote from wikipedia.

“Stop with all those definitions!”, I hear you say. But here is the thing that makes it all fall into place, one more definition:

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true, the wiki of course.

Truth, more than that, obvious truth, that is what belief empowers. And belief is the strange attractor our minds revolve around. Take all beliefs and you’ll get suicide.

Liberals, by believing in universal values, think the inner reality is the source of truth. Conservatives, by believing in fundamental values, think the outer reality is the source of truth.

Conservatives are historically right. Man started by imitating nature. Their belief is rooted in the past.

Liberals are probably right. The future has proven constantly uncertain and mankind survived by handling the future, which we do mostly by imagining a “better” nature. Their belief is rooted in human nature.

You cannot reconcile this. When you try you get this:

In the fairy tale kingdom of hope, disillusion is the dragon wreaking havoc

Here is how disillusion begins to breathe fire: conservatives are pro business, but they oppose globalisation. Liberals are pro government, but they support globalisation. There is nothing better for business than globalisation. In my country the socialists won elections by proposing tax cuts. The world is going bananas.

What is the liberal promise? Individuality or Community? It is very hard to not envision the image of the Jehovah’s Witness’ marketing materials:

That is a picture from Watchtower that has been stuck in my mind since childhood. I had one issue of Watchtower around the house and I was, and still am, fascinated by these illustrations.

Social Justice, LGBTQA rights, equality of chances, eco consciousness, everything is in that picture, symbolically.

But as much as they fascinate me, I know: some lions will not accept to not eat the lamb. 100% sure. Will you punish the lion?

Stop it with nature vs nurture. There is no nurture, everything is nature.

The conservative, right, promise is simple and clear: work hard, we’ll stand out of your way and if you bring value and luck finds you, you’ll be rich and famous. If luck doesn’t find you, you’ll have a common routine life which you’ll have to work hard to maintain or you’ll slip in a poverty so deep, only God can save you. And God will save you. We hope.

The liberal, left, promise is complex and blurry: work hard but not too hard, we’ll hold your hand when you slip, luck doesn’t exist, only merit does, and the high in merit will be rich and famous. If merit is not enough, you’ll have a common routine life which we’ll make sure you are locked into so that our elites are not polluted by your ineptitude. Oh and there probably is no God, so …, yeah.

As you see the left has a lot more vagueness: merit, averages, introspection, elitism built in. And its only natural, that is how things are represented inside ourselves: blurry and complex. We get anxious about the coldness of the universe, while the universe doesn’t even acknowledge our beingness.

The liberal part of the planet needs a more practical and less aggressive discourse. You can’t state you’re correct, just because you sound right. Take LGBTQA rights. There are conservatives who, if faced magically and instantly with the full awareness of their bisexuality level on the Kinsey scale, would jump off a bridge. Before you say, “well that’d be great”, remember no man is an island and you cannot have LGBTQA rights without social justice which is a complete justice, across all society.

The belief in fundamental values is blocking. When you ask conservatives why can’t they see gender is a fluid concept, they’ll reply: because look in the mirror. You sound just as insane to a conservative, as they sound fanatic to you.

I am liberal because I believe is is Humanity’s great task to build time resilience to perfection and that is only possible in a liberal society which is a thousand times better fit and a lot less arthritic than a conservative society in facing the immense challenges the future will constantly bring. That is my certainty, which is what limits my awareness and makes me less creative in envisioning the possible reconciliation. All certainties limit awareness.

But, happily, I know: ecosystems are conservative, they initially fight change then once it becomes unavoidable they engulf it in the same ancient structures.

Which brings me to the biggest mental illusion that affects my liberal friends across the planet: their being on the right side of history. Folks,

The “wrong side of history” is apocalyptic talk

This is what I see when I hear “they are on the wrong side of history”:

That is another Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower illustration. These have to be the most elitist assholes ever depicted. Like the Silicon Valley techies whining about the homeless in San Francisco.

What we liberals see as obvious is because our basic building blocks for internally representing the world are made this way, not because we are better beings.

If we leave behind half of the planet to burn, we fail to see they simmer, and the upcoming blowing lid will hit us right in the face. Like it just happened.

We need less vagueness in our discourse, a lower pitch, more grave tone.

Like, you know, solutions to problems. For example, capitalism, our current economic game, will face more and more problems. Problems like the shift of the nature of capital from material to immaterial. Or the fact that, right now, companies in certain work markets have a very hard time to keep workers/employees motivated.

The generational gap in information access, the increased life expectancy, the thousand year long lack of religious miracles, they all contribute to a general dissatisfaction with how the system manages our short life. When the need to be employed becomes essentially a strictly materialist endeavour, we’ll bring back some kind of violence to keep people productive.

A liberal society can transform capitalism. A conservative society will fight life to preserve a system. That is the truth. That is what mr. Trump is doing and that is what his government apparatus looks like it is getting ready to do. It is ours, the liberal folk’s responsibility to provide the alternative framework.

Life changes fast and ends quickly. That is what I know and that makes be believe in universal values. I am not better and I am thankful there are people who know different.

I also know, fundamental values justify violent positions. If we keep telling ourselves the conservatives will die off and that eventually everyone will see the light of the universals, we make the huge mistake of forgetting the diversity of the human experience, which basically is what makes one liberal or conservative, not college or health insurance.

Let’s look outside our heads for a bit, we have four years to become better.

When proven wrong people don’t feel enlightenment but defeat

“The Agony of Defeat”, Trevor Batstone.

Emily Dinckinson wrote:

Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne’er succeed.
To comprehend a nectar
Requires sorest need.
Not one of all the purple Host
Who took the Flag today
Can tell the definition
So clear of victory
As he defeated — dying –
On whose forbidden ear
The distant strains of triumph
Burst agonized and clear!

She was correct.

Maybe the progressives should take note of this reality of the human spirit.
Maybe we should take a moment to realize that the balloon of progress is inflated more and more each day, squeezing conservatives against the wall of the unacceptable.
Maybe we all, the open minded folk, should acknowledge the dark clouds of global movement of population bringing the same problems back into societies that have already cleared them, more or less.

I’m not sure! Maybe!

I mean our mentality is barely out of the dark ages. Knowledge is out of the middle ages for hundreds of years, but our collective models of the world, well, they are just seeing the light. So the progressive pressure might be the new steam revolution, for the archetypes of the worlds.

But the main argument still holds: whenever you manage to make your take win remember someone lost. Viscerally, it has zero importance that the argument was obvious, or that “history” is on your side, or that, hell, facts are overwhelmingly with you. Sure, people will dissimulate as much as possible. Most will rationalize the defeat as “lessons”, but there will be a lot who will accumulate defeats.

The defeated don’t give up. They build up. They move from existence to subsistence. And when they emerge, the subsistence made them so sharp that they can pin the entire world to the ground.

Radicals were never the majority, yet since forever, a strong and determined group of people can change their entire world. And sometimes radicalization makes strong and determined groups of people.

And it is about nothing in particular. The wrong is everywhere: in science, in politics, in family life, at work, no matter the setting, the defeat of the ones in the wrong keeps piling up. And we’re all sometimes in the wrong! Sure, there is local defeat which sinks with the dying of generations. But global defeat on concepts and mentalities thrive with the passage of time because we forget how hard we’ve got the freedoms and the progress. Forgetting is the springboard of demagogues.

This year I realized we’re going back to salon manners. Ideas like etiquette gained solid support. Shunning merit because of nodding done behind closed doors is ever more common. The terms of sexist, racist, old, lame are imparted as easily as ever, but today there is a committee of those “in the know” and if they label you as such, you’re done. So medieval.

I also fear the new tech nobility, because it doesn’t matter how enlightened you are if you live in an ivory tower you’ll eventually get tired of the common people, forgetting the fact that:

Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne’er succeed.

Just my 2 cents,


TIL: Nassim Taleb is a Trump supporter

An idol has fallen and the thickness of disappointment is suffocating

Why Would You Do This To Me? GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

I live in the middle of nowhere so excuse my ignorance. I like mr. Taleb’s ideas a lot but his last article, The Intellectual Yet Idiot left me completely unimpressed, even more, a tad surprised that someone of his caliber could descend into such name calling and mud fighting just to make a very simple point: not all smart people are also great humans. No shit?

Reading the article which is very bad compared to his his other recently trending articles, How To Legally Own Another Person, We Don’t Know What We Are Talking About When We talk about Religion, The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority, I discarded the nagging feeling of inauthenticity as a bad day, a sensationalist monologue meant to entice feuds which Nassim Taleb enjoys, and which me as a reader enjoyed, while kept at an intellectual level. Yet, last week NT gave up on all prudence and self control which made arrogance into boldness, and served us a shit storm of broken ideas and accusations and complaining and instigation.

While I’ve spent the better part of an evening annoyed by this, I let it slide. But the next day, triggered by the fact that I couldn’t convince myself the article was a mistake I started going through responses, then search online, then .. behold: I wish I hadn’t searched for I found out that in his opinion Donald Trump is a brilliant sales person and that the EU is a project doomed to fail.

At this point I got it. I’m slow, I know, especially when I like someone.

For the life of me I don’t get it how someone who meets this criteria:

  • is successful
  • is intelligent
  • is cultured
  • is politically unaffiliated
  • is not income dependent on Republican sources
  • is free
  • is a good person

can commit the fallacy of:

  • trump support.

Trump support means some of the criteria has fallen through the cracks.

If you find yourself in a position of influence and campaign for Trump, then you are one or many of: corrupted, a bad person, blackmailed, financially dependent on Republican sources, uncultured or nihilist. Some such as Mr. Peter Thiel are easy to spot, they need to make this choice as it is part of their identity, an identity blind to humanity and concerned exclusively with particular humans.

But Mr. Taleb seemed too synthetic in his hand waving postulates to shatter this carefully constructed persona by doing the trump support stunt. I wonder if I will ever get the chance to see for myself that these intelligent, cultured, influential and powerful people, even one of them, does the trump support out of real personal intimately lived conviction, because from where I stand they’re all spitting out demagogy for direct personal benefit, gambling the lives of millions while having fun knowing they’re herding herds into the ravine.

Evil Eye Gtfo GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Spoiled brats who found success with a few moves, unlike the rest who must circle the board because the dice is shit.

This article is getting popular so I am appending my reply to SF Ali below for the sake of completeness:

I don’t think complimenting Trump as a “brilliant sales person” constitutes political endorsement, influential support, or anything besides recognizing Mr. Trump’s skill in salesmanship and persuasion.

I didn’t jump to the conclusion so fast, just because Nassim was stating the obvious about Trump. I thought about it. There are plenty of dubious people online, dubious people with opinions written on dubious blogs, who clearly throw Taleb as a token to decorate their cause with known thought leaders. I intentionally picked just two things, the salesman acknowledgement and the position on the E.U., two things which are covered either by Nassim himself or by widespread media.

However, Nassim is showcasing charts! Like this one on his Twitter stream:

He tweeted this. From the high stand of his fame and achievement, he tweeted this. Just look at it, weigh the chosen words, not necessarily the facts, the kind of inclination suggested, the little pointers.

He uses the Shillary derogatory term. I mean, he surely is no dreamer who looks forward for a third party, is he? Am I expected to imagine that Mr. Taleb with his intellectual reach sincerely believes there is a third option? Not really, no, when you measure your words to one candidate, but decisively don’t support the other it sends out a message. This article below sums up pretty good what the illusion of the third option really means:

This is what Nassim does, pointing discreetly one way and rudely blocking the other way. He is safe with this approach, paying his dues to himself as political orientation and desire to be right, or to anything or anyone who, in theory, could ask of him to commit the act of demagogy.

Regarding the simple affirmation that Trump is a good sales person, if anything, I don’t like this complimenting of something everyone knows. It is not even an established fact, because:

Donald Trump is a deal maker not a sale closer

Deal makers are the problem. The sale closer makes a profit from his stuff by convincing others of unreal value. The deal maker makes profit from everyone’s stuff by convincing others of his value.

I am afraid if Nassim fails to see this difference, I know, no, I hope, he does see it, because I think he nails a lot of other far more obscure ideas and differences, how can he miss this. There are known facts about the Donald that shed a lot of light on his so called salesmanship, and they are not elitist explanations, but pure deal details.

Donald is good at mitigating losses, in his personal favor, this is not sales skill. It is an important business skill though.

For a person of Nassim’s caliber, this Facebook update is pretty irresponsible:

The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other “well thinking” members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment.

The bold is mine. This justifies stupid choices by grounding them in illusory righteous justice. That is also how Nassim defends the large group of those who chose the brexit, by justifying a bad choice as a form of popular revelation and social revolt. It is not that these things are wrong, the people made a choice and they had their reasons, but reasons alone don’t make a choice good, and Nassim should be the first to grasp this.

Then, Nassim’s ideas about the EU, such as this below:

The European Union is a horrible, stupid project. The idea that unification would create an economy that could compete with China and be more like the United States is pure garbage. What ruined China, throughout history, is the top-down state. What made Europe great was the diversity: political and economic. Having the same currency, the euro, was a terrible idea. It encouraged everyone to borrow to the hilt.

… are “wrong, historically”.

The bold is mine again. The E.U. is an anti-war system designed with a greater goal in mind than competing China. When this union was conceived China was far from the market dominatrix it has become. But that doesn’t even matter. The diversity in political orientations, economic systems and ethnic groups, the aspect which Nassim comfortably forgets, is what makes Europe the most unstable and ideologically mined place on Earth.

So, this is an informed opinion, not a hard cold fact. Maybe Nassim is the Trump of his domain, a bully every domain needs to wake up from lethargy or self reinforcing illusion of grandeur. When Nassim writes about business and even economy, he can go for it and throw all his ideas and theories with the charm of a bold man stating truth that provokes. However, when Nassim writes about politics, the most basic form of management humans have which empowers our survival, a special kind of consideration is required. Just as he is perfectly right about the blissful undecidedness regarding the Salafi political agenda, he is dead wrong when he tips the scales in the favor of a sociopath, who so far sublimated this disease in making deals engraved on the inside walls of pyramids made of losses.

SF Ali it has been heartbreaking and scary for me to reach this point. I could be dead wrong, I don’t know Nassim, have I ever had the chance to overtly debate this with him I would. As a marketer I know you see through Trump and I am 100% sure you feel his brand building initiative.

But, you see, the metaphor of the sale in politics is fake, because in politics every sale is of our future into the void. There is no customer for humanity’s persistence as a system in the universe. That is why I believe Donald the salesman who convinces scores of hillbillies is a stunt, created to deceive the real danger, the mobilization of the angry mob. Whenever villages burned witches, it was not the majority of the people who made it happen, but the small vocal minority, you know the one Nassim explained how it always wins.

nderground indeed,

Taleb may see a kindred soul in The Donald.

And that scares me, because if a settled intellect is so fragile and easy to be abused by the mania of the ego, we’re at far more risk than simply nuclear buttons bellow stubby fingers having constant bad hair days. It means we’re a void waiting to be filled, and that is exactly what the deal maker Donald will make: fill our void with himself.

There may be valid criticisms of Dr. Taleb’s academics, philosophy and even his online penchant for sparring with pseudointellectuals, but this isn’t one. (SF Ali)

You are perfectly right because I am not even trying to build a valid criticism. I am simply stating clearly the opinion I formed based on the thoughts and ideas endorsed and then thrown into the pit of public debate by Nassim Taleb.

Will war “happen”?

Do you think that, at this point in history, war falls in the same “pool of possibilities” as the Donald winning, or is it just more populist stirrups that haunt the news?

Immigration, a concrete political truth, is the fault of a political elite that, due to their ivory tower isolation, failed to see the destructive impact of open borders.

I wonder, where are the Europeans going to seek refuge in case of conflict? In Trump’s US? Well, not if you’re gypsy, or Albanian, or Bosnian … If the Mexican wall is up will the Spanish or Portuguese people be offered refuge, should the war in Europe get that far west?

I think progressives sped up progress too fast. At high speed a small tiny bump in the road can send you crashing in the first tree. I understand what libtard means, and I am a liberal: a libtard is that liberal who doesn’t understand the part of human nature which makes us feel like we lost whenever we’re proven wrong. Libtards don’t experience this feeling because the science and studies are “on their side” and they lack that empathy and compassion required for persuading people to change.

I’ve seen so many people laughing about Greece’s military spending, having no clue of the reasons behind that. Say Turkey falls over the edge and becomes a fundamentalist state driven to a “holy” war, will they not first settle their Greek issues? Sure they will! The world now, even this place, Medium, is so filled with disconnected folk who simply think they know everything there is to be known, backed by zillions of facts and armed with powerful phrasing, borrowed from great speeches.

When two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, were on the cusp of war in 1974, the United States secretly removed all of NATO’s nuclear weapons from Greece and cut the arming wires of every nuclear weapon stored in Turkey, rendering them inoperable. (source)

Do social justice warriors understand, I wonder, that some of the Serbs didn’t really settle with their losing the war? Do they know that some of the Croatians know how those Serbs feel? Do people who claim we should welcome waves of immigration as if it is the normal thing to do, know that most of the personnel tasked with background checks are tired and overworked folk with families waiting at home? Free movement is the right thing to do, not the normal thing to do. The normal thing, in general, is to consider how much of the right thing does it fit in what we have as a pot.

We behave as if seventy years of peace erases hundred and hundreds of years of folklore, lore, rivalries, indoctrination, religious education, customs, ethnic ties, foes and friends. Why do people believe that in a certain situation, with all the public apology, the Chinese won’t pay back to the Japanese all the pain they distilled in all these decades? I wonder, don’t the Japanese know that?

I live in a small country where the majority of people want orthodox dogma to be taught as a mandatory “religion” course in primary school! In this country racism is rampant and so are ethnic issues, unaddressed for decades. I watch as foreign forces try to force reform here, oblivious, for example, to the fact that nepotism is so ingrained in our way of life that we don’t consider it to be corruption. Stealing from the state, theft from big faceless institutions, was both the survival method and the key to success in life during 45 years of communist rule, and the EU hands us free money. Ha ha. It would be amusing, only if were it not so sad.

Last September, Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP and loudmouth Leave agitator, claimed that Britain was ‘experiencing a Romanian crime wave’ and that 92% of crimes at ATM machines were committed by Romanians.

We the Romanians were so angry when the Britons and the French made fun of us, or blamed us for their lack of employment or street beggars. But then when the quota for immigration was sent our way, we did the same things done to us, unto future Syrian immigrants. Just as the UK or France forgets the horde of IT, medical and scientific emigration out of Romania and into their countries, using that expertise, using the education we the Romanians paid for to advance their societies, so do we forget the many Muslims that are respectable business owners or doctors in our country, because crowds suffer from a kind of mix of paranoia and schizophrenia.

Crowds suffer from a kind of mix of paranoia and schizophrenia as if these latent diseases, which we all have but some of us manage very well, compound. People in Romania actually went out in the street in support of the Syrian secretary of state who revamped our medical emergency response system, and then the same Romanian people voted people who promised to keep those Syrians out.

So, I am asking you Tom Mitchell in this longish response, can war happen? If president Drumpf is a possible reality, is world war in the 21st century a possible reality? Will that 22 million army of Turkey ever assemble? What do you think?

I was watching an antisemitic video on YouTube and that moron explained how the Hebrew people are evil because they don’t go to war like everyone else. I wonder, are there countries who came to the conclusion that the only way to level the global economy is to bring the others down?

What are we doing?

What a misunderstood concept

The “Political Correctness” phrase is the perfect example of good intention ending in disaster. The whirling cascade of bad jokes, inspired by the politically correct approaches (see George Carlin and his hate for PC) show in a crystal clear precision the difficulty of being lucid in a world bathing in confusion. The derogatory way in which political correctness is understood makes me sad.

Some people, specifically the smart and cultivated people, claim that PC flattens the creative differences between humans and trims off the subjective specificity of history, society or morals. I do not agree with this idea. Only the morally incompetent are “flattened” by an educated attempt of discerning with coherence between abuse and adjective. The funniest part, these days, is a lamenting I came across claiming that the “western PC speech” destroys traditional religious (orthodox in this case) national values, but criminally “forgetting” that the lay man’s interpretation of the religious values birthed the deepest form of incorrect, inhumane and illogical discourse, based mostly on superstition — e.g. we don’t vote on equal marriage because we fear God, or we don’t create a legal framework for sex work because we’re not a country of sinful lustful pagans … you know the drill.

Other people claim that behind Political Correctness you’ll find hidden a true doctrine of ideological control. I don’t agree with this either, despite my unshaken belief in global conspiracy. Where is the connection between a straightforward attempt to rationally manage delicate themes, themes loaded with emotions, with ideology? Is it, I wonder, in the domain of ideology to avoid talking about a woman’s looks during her hiring interview for a job at a scientific laboratory? I wouldn’t think so. Are the modern feminists politically correct in their deeply ideological speech? I wouldn’t think so, not even if someone could prove it otherwise.

To be magical there must be three ways to attack PC. The third weapon: a long series of historic blunders achieved masterfully by those who got PC the wrong way and have reduced what was to be a complex effort of social defining to a damned chain of stupid euphemisms — such as “police person”, “fire person” and so on. These are the true force that drives PC down from its moral high ground, those who linguistically perfect humanity in the name of a concept that has very, very little to do with the world’s dictionaries. These people have a lot of power because “the many” are always “the simple” and that’s about all they know about PC: unisex bathrooms.

For those of you who are still willing to give PC another shot, knowing that it is a great platform for good, detached reasoning, you must know that Political Correctness is less about politics and more about correctness. The main work of PC is to find that way in which human pluralism, this intrinsic quality of our emotional and intellectual complexity, gets to be described in an acceptable and pacifist way. This endeavor helps people to respect one another in a simpler but more profound manner, meaning somehow beyond the relentless stereotypes of the older generations so scared of the new, stereotypes such as women should go in the kitchen while men are working, faggots are lesser men, the nerds and dorks are ugly, the HIV positive must be an addict too and so on! Can you see how even using exactly the most politically incorrect expressions you cannot hide the underlying discrimination problem?

Your capacity to think outside of your immediate universe, the power to identify with others who are nothing like you, is, in a way, a basic compound inside the essence of your spiritual evolution, isn’t it?

Click to see which kind of normal you are

Say, do you know the difference between:

  • normality as defined by majority, and
  • normality as defined by society?

What is the difference between society and majority?

Society is time bound. Majorities are interest bound.

When you heard Obama say “on the wrong side of history” he was talking about society.

When you hear Trump say “it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass” he was talking to the majority.

The thing is: you can talk about societies and to majorities, because societies are hard to grasp but majorities are simple. Nothing outside of religion ever grasped whole societies, while the correct lowest common denominator will always get you a simple majority.

Politics is the fight between society and majority. A society includes both the majority and the minority. The political game is the constant attempt of the majority to seize the power of the minority.

It doesn’t matter who looks on the side of the Good. It doesn’t matter who is right. It doesn’t matter who fights for worthy principles.

Democracy should be the power of society, but instead is the rule of the majority. Simple majorities make democracies soft on the inside. Sure, the shell is hard, the exoskeleton of feudalism, slavery, masters and servants all died and made the tough protection which keeps us in the warmth of our democracy. But its all soft on the inside, like an armored bug.

A democracy without the power of the minority will revert to extremes, which do only one thing: break societies. Whenever the minority is powerless the society is corrupted. It’s that simple. Maybe extremes are the mutation we need to evolve. Maybe not, and extremes are the things which hold us back as a living species for a hundred thousand years.

What is normal?

Normal is the stability of a certain group of people. Normality defines the base metaphor on which the entire education process is based on. There are many types of normality, depending on their area of influence: personal, family, group, social, biologic and so on. The sole preoccupation of normality is stability. I am sitting on my normality so that the absurdity of my existence does not crumble the matchbox of meaning I made.

When societies define the normal, the normal is weak and generic, but it will permeate all aspects of life, it will suffocate all individuality. When majorities define the normal the normal is strong and particular, but it will pierce through diversity relentlessly. Individuality is not the same thing as diversity. Many unique individuals do not make a diverse society. A diverse society has powerful minorities and strong individuals. A society of strong individuals and powerless minorities is fascist. A society with powerless individuals and powerless minorities is totalitarian. A society with powerless individuals but strong minorities is a fallen civilization.

Neither form of normal works for the greater good of mankind. But because we are guided by ourselves we’ll constantly choose between the two types of normality. In an ideal world we’d quit even using the term. But we don’t and we strive so hard to be normal.

I would choose the social normality over the majority normality, because societies are time bound and hence change fast. Only natural disasters, wars, disease and major technological breakthroughs break majorities, therefore their normal is stable and long lasting. What do you choose?