Why The Majority Won’t Save Us
At the heart of our attempt to rescue Western society from the self-serving establishment who rule over it (and us), lies a key question: can we count on the majority to help us?
‘Don't spend time beating on a wall, hoping to transform it into a door.’ - Coco Chanel
At the heart of our attempt to rescue Western society from the self-serving establishment who rule over it (and us), lies a key question: can we count on the majority to help us?
The answer to this question has far reaching consequences not just for what strategy and tactics to employ to oust the corrupt powers that be, but also for what role the majority will play in the society and system that replaces the present one once we do.
When answering this question it’s important too to distinguish between ideals and reality - between the way we’d like the world to be and the way it is. For example, if we’re faced with a choice between Path A, which we feel a sentimental or even blind attachment to but which is likely to fail, or Path B, which feels daunting and foreign, but which is more likely to succeed, then we should choose the latter - for saving our society requires a results focused mindset and approach (not sentimentality or stubbornness of the kind that’s like flogging a dead horse).
In this piece we will let results be our guide when we answer the question of whether we can count on the majority to help us save the West. We will get there in 3 steps:
Firstly, we will explore the traits of the majority.
Secondly, we will examine the disincentives and incentives the majority operate under.
Thirdly, we will look at the most widely touted source of power for the majority and see if what it promises stacks up with what it delivers.
1- Traits Of The Majority
You may have heard so called freedom fighters, dissidents, or activists (either online or at protests) issue their calls to action with exclamations like:
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
OPEN YOUR EYES
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!
Usually these catch-cry’s are directed towards ‘the people,’ also known as the majority. If they rise up and take collective action, the story goes, then they can change things. This all sounds good and well, but anyone making such calls to action might as well be doing so in a remote cave, because it is a futile act and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of who the majority are and what function they serve in society.
The majority can be summarised as the great mass of people who conform to the status quo. They are products of it and accept it in various shades ranging from extreme loyalty and deference to indifference or resignation. Regardless of how they relate to it however, they all accept it as an immutable reality - as real, powerful, and constant as the sun occupying the centre of the solar system.
Herein lies the first challenge with relying on the majority - they cannot seriously imagine an alternative to the status quo. Or they can, but only as a fantasy or wishful thinking. For instance, the loyalist is too confident in their system to believe it could ever be upended, and those who are resigned or indifferent to it believe nothing can or will ever change.
So this is our starting point with the majority - they don’t believe the status quo can change, and for better or worse they believe the establishment will always get their way.
Let’s look at some other key traits of the majority:
A) They’re slow to notice.
The majority are very slow to catch wind of major societal shifts or trends. These shifts and trends are usually comprised of a mix of social, cultural, political, technological, economic, legal, environmental, demographic, and educational developments, events, and decisions that occur through time - the results of which become apparent perhaps years or decades into the future.
For the average person to see these shifts and trends requires keeping track of different fields of knowledge through time, as well as having the ability to understand what they’re seeing, being able to identity patterns and links, and making and updating conclusions about what it all means in the grand scheme of things.
The majority can’t do that and in fact wouldn’t want to if they could - because it’s not worth their time or energy. With so many personal and immediate concerns to focus on like family, work, study, friends, hobbies, leisure, finances, and general every day stuff - it makes no sense for them to be tracking these things. And if they are interested in keeping ‘informed’ then they follow the establishment narrative - as put forth by, for example, the mainstream media, which means they hear what the establishment wants them to hear and not the true story. As a result they are always the last to know, and only realise the severity of the situation when it is obvious, i.e. when it’s too late for them to do anything about it except reap the consequences.
A follow on trait to this is b) They are largely ignorant of one of the greatest teachers we have: the vast sweep of history.
By ignoring history’s patterns and cycles, they are ill equipped to recognise where current shifts and trends, that have happened many times through history, could lead.
Another trait of the majority is c) They are highly susceptible to indoctrination.
There’s a quote from a 19th century novelist that goes: ‘If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.’
Variations of this quote were later attributed to Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin and Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, both whom understood this principle very well.
The majority are indoctrinated through the education system, culture, media, entertainment, arts & literature, and more. This is a mix of both deliberate and unknowing indoctrination, in the latter case it’s just the indoctrinated spreading to others what they have been taught is true.
Today, we get to witness first hand the awesome power of indoctrination courtesy of the woke - who have convinced people to believe the most outlandish and harmful falsehoods to a point where those people can look at you with a straight face and repeat these falsehoods with full conviction that they’re true.
A trait that echoes this is d) The majority often lack the curiosity to question what they believe.
Most people aren’t actively looking to challenge their beliefs about the system they exist within, so they’re not going to deliberately pursue information that could lead them to do so. The desire or need for such an endeavour doesn’t arise - any more than the desire to fly would arise in a turtle.
Another trait of the majority is e) Their high threshold for action.
This means even if the majority notice something bad is happening, the threshold they must reach to do anything meaningful about it is very high. They will tolerate high levels of incompetence, abuse, threats, and even violence before they act (again, if they act at all, for they may reason that its better to keep their head down than make themselves a target). Think of the Covid lockdowns; a tiny minority protested it on the streets, but the majority kept their mouth shut and went along with it. In countries like China, lockdowns were hellish - but again the majority complied.
The same too with the wide scale riots, looting, theft, assault, destruction of property and businesses, murder, and disruption to local economies and everyday life that BLM, Antifa, and Woke activists unleashed on America in 2020 - the majority decided it was better to keep their head down and remain invisible.
One does wonder what would need to happen for the the majority to reach their threshold for action, but there are additional reasons for their hesitancy which we will cover in part 2 of this piece. For now the takeaway is that taking action is not the forte of the majority.
Yet another trait of the majority is f) A lack of collective courage.
This is not to say that the people who make up the majority aren’t individually courageous - there will be those who are, those who aren’t, those who are everything in between, and those who will be courageous in certain contexts and not in others, but the nature of the majority is that as a collective they tend towards a lack of courage.
It’s risky after all being one courageous man in a sea of 1,000 fearful men. You may stand up for them, but they may not reciprocate and stand up for you. The trust and bonds are shaky when dealing with groups of people who number in the millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions. If anything, being courageous as an individual for such a large majority is more likely to lead to your being punished, betrayed or ostracised - particularly when it involves going up against the powers that be. For this reason otherwise courageous people will default to caution and timidity in matters affecting ‘society’ or ‘everyone’ and just hope things work themselves out somehow or that someone else steps up and does something about it.
Then there’s trait g) A lack of solidarity.
Native westerners today are highly individualistic, and less community or group oriented than in ages past. They are thus less likely to stand up for society if it’s under attack - as they may think if it’s not impacting them personally right now then it’s not their problem. They simply don’t perceive themselves as being part of a greater community or group, apart from when they’re watching international sports.
Lastly there’s trait h) Incoordination.
Let’s say in an ideal scenario the majority rise up despite their already mentioned traits….well, they still face the problem that they are uncoordinated. When you’re talking about the majority - you’re talking about people who have thousands (or possibly millions) of different opinions, perspectives, preferences, objectives, biases, fears, and more - and trying to herd all these different people into one collective group with one collective mission is about as effective as building an army out of cats. The majority as a group are messy, disorganised, irresolute, chaotic, prone to change their minds, prone to squabbling and infighting, prone to excess and lack of discipline, they make decisions based on emotion, and in short, are ineffective when they act. What’s more how do you overturn the status quo by using the majority - who are the status quo.
But if these traits weren’t enough to sink the majority’s chances of helping us right the ship of society, let’s look at both the disincentives and incentives that they operate under.
2- The Majority: Disincentives & Incentives
Let’s starts with disincentives.
Firstly, the majority are disincentivised to take meaningful action against the establishment because if they do it could put theirs and their families safety at risk. The threat could come from the government, including police, the courts, and intelligence agencies; from violent extremists like Antifa; from Black Lives Matter thugs, woke activists, lone wolf psychos, and more. So unless they want to live in a state of constant vigilance and paranoia - because it might only take a single moment for a bad player to ruin them (and they won’t know if or when that moment will come), then most opt to stay out of the fight.
Secondly, they’re also disincentivised by threats to their livelihood. It’s so easy nowadays for people to be fired from their jobs and have their careers or businesses ruined for saying an unapproved thing (even if it’s accidental or in the heat of the moment). Zero mercy is shown. This means years of hard work and dedication can be lost in an instant. Not only does the transgressor lose their job or business, they are also blacklisted from gaining employment in their field again. How will they pay their mortgage or rent? How will they service their bills? How will they feed their kids? For most, it’s just not worth it. Better to live to see another day.
Thirdly, they’re disincentivised due to the risk to their social standing and reputation. They may lose friends, be ostracised by their community or wider social circle, have the media drag their name through the mud, or even have family members turn on them. For example, what if being associated with them also hurts their spouses career and their kids’ futures? Most people will think to themselves: “Screw this. It’s not my fight. What the heck am I going to do anyway? What will I achieve by taking a stand? Yet I could lose everything.”
Fourthly, they’re disincentivised by who they imagine themselves becoming if they oppose the status quo. This goes deeper - to the level of their identity. Do they feel comfortable becoming what some might call an outcast, a scapegoat, an extremist, even a loser? Are they really ready to go against the crowd? Most would rather fit in than become something society is told to hate and ridicule. It can be a daunting and solitary experience to simultaneously want to save society yet stand firmly in opposition to it. Who’s willing to take the leap? ……. Yep, that’s the sound of crickets.
Lastly, the majority also know instinctively that everyone else faces the same disincentives as them, that they think about them in the same way, and that in the end they won’t act either. Unspoken group think at its finest.
The flip side of all this is the incentives on offer for complying with the current state of things. These are basically the inverse of the disincentives. If they will proclaim their loyalty to the cause or ideology or just keep their mouth shut, then it can help with their employment prospects, with career progression, with their social life, with their overall standing in society, and more - they’re one of the good guys after all so should be rewarded (or at least not be singled out for punishment).
So why would anyone trade this - a life of relative comfort and security for a life where their safety, livelihood, reputation, and even identity are threatened? Most won’t and we know that.
Next let’s look at the elephant in the room.
3- Every Vote Counts
Up till now it might have appeared I was neglecting the obvious. For there is a way for the majority to make a stand; to have their say. It’s their legal right, they can do it anonymously, and they can do it without risking their safety, livelihood, or social standing.
It’s voting of course.
For those who think this is their get out of jail free card from the realities we’ve just explored, my first question to you is: “How’s it working out for us?” My second question is: “Under this system, will things get better or worse as time goes on?”
I think I know the answers for most of you. They’re likely the same as mine. So should we keep doing the equivalent of flapping our arms by our sides hoping we can somehow fly, just like we keep putting pieces of paper in a ballot box every few years hoping it changes something? Or should we look at things as they truly are - devoid of wishful thinking and sentimentality?
Since we’ve been doing the former most of our lives, let’s try the latter approach for a change.
The following 3 points should make things clear:
1- Giving the majority a vote is for show.
It’s theatre - it gives the illusion ‘the people’ have power, when they have none.
Political parties and the giant mass of unelected bureaucrats behind them hold the power. Since we don’t vote for the latter, we’ll ignore them for now and look at those we do vote for: politicians and their parties. They serve the people do they not?
No. They serve two types of interests primarily: self-interest and special interest. The public interest comes a distant third.
Self-interest means doing what is best for themselves and their party. Special interest means doing what is best for minority groups like industry lobbyists, non-profits, unions, etc. Any policy that politicians evaluate gets filtered through these first two interests to ensure it serves them, and if it does, it gets the rubber stamp and can then potentially serve the public interest (or not - for it serving the public isn’t mandatory).
If however a policy or law would serve the public interest, but it doesn’t serve their self-interest and special interests, then usually it will be amended till it does, or will be discarded or ignored - regardless of the consequences for the public.
Here is a current example:
Right now it’s in the long term public interest to heavily reduce or even eliminate immigration into the UK, but self-interest and special interests demand that immigration remain high and constant. So in the year ending June 2022, 1.1 million foreign nationals came to live in the UK. (This is under a Conservative government by the way.)
Why does this serve politicians self-interest? Because it serves the interests of big business who want more workers and consumers in order to grow their profits (see my piece ‘The Profit Men Who Control The West’ for more on this) and because doing the bidding of big business is in the interests of the political party in question - as it means career opportunities, perks, funding, and support. The party is also ideologically aligned with big business, so they are serving their ideology too (which ultimately means their self-interest - at least in their eyes).
But this raises the obvious question: if one party is failing to serve the interests of the majority, surely another party can step up and do so, and gain power?
Well, that’s not how it works. The best way to think about how major political parties work in the UK, the US and elsewhere is as an oligopoly (some might even go so far as to call them a cartel). A handful of parties (often just two) dominate and the barriers to entry to compete with them are extremely high. These parties know that in this game you win some and lose some - and they’ve also learnt that they don’t need to do what the people want them to do because the other party won’t do the people’s bidding either. They both know it’s significantly more advantageous to serve their own interests and special interests first, and the people’s interest last. So that’s what they do.
What this means in practice is that they’ll compete in the public square, not based on substance, but on rhetoric and showmanship. The one who wins is usually the one that sounds the most convincing at the time or that pisses off or puts off less people than their opponent.
But what about populists? Well, two things here. You have fake populists which sometimes a major party will be fortunate to have, as they can help them beat the other party for a time (think Boris Johnson in the UK, who was rhetorically a conservative populist but substantively centre-left). Or you can have genuine populists like Donald Trump (immensely flawed as he is) and we saw how the establishment reacted to him. They won’t stop till he’s behind bars or worse. What difference did his 4 years in office make? Zero. The decline and degeneracy has accelerated since he left, the establishment have consolidated their power further, and they have become even more ruthless in getting their way. America is in a far worse position for having had a populist as President. His victory caught the establishment by surprise, but they ensured he could do nothing of substance during his term. He was reduced to populist rhetorician and showman, and nothing more. They have also taken steps to ensure something like this never happens again.
It’s the same with Brexit, which I voted for. Holding a referendum was a giant miscalculation by an establishment party and it backfired spectacularly for them. But of course they tried to overturn the result for 3 years, and now that it’s done is the UK any better off? Have we taken back control? Well, let’s see. Legal immigration is the highest it’s ever been and illegal immigration is soaring. We experienced extended Covid lockdowns. Both major parties are woke, all our institutions are woke, and the establishment are hard at work on woke-ifying the police and armed forces. In short, it seems my vote achieved little if anything.
The truth is that voting today means nothing. A sizeable percentage already know this. In the 2020 US Presidential Election (the one with the most votes cast in history) 37.2% of the eligible voting population didn’t bother to vote. In the UK General Election of 2019, with Brexit at stake, 32.7% of the voting population didn’t vote.
For the remainder who voted, the few minutes it took them to fill out the ballot and post it, or the minutes or hours it took them to vote in person, was just an acting gig where they played a character that has a say. Once their vote was cast, the scene ended, their acting gig was over, and they went back to the real world where they have no say. For all the decisions about education, defence, culture, the economy, law and order, immigration, and every other key area of society are made not by them, but by a powerful minority who serve their own interests and those of their friends.
This minority are also actors, but their act goes on indefinitely (or at least whenever the cameras are rolling). They act as if they serve the majority, and they repeat platitudes that make the majority feel so proud about the power they supposedly have. It all sounds so simple, just mark a piece of paper one afternoon, you only have to do it once every few years, and that’s it. It’s definitely not too good to be true, and it works, or so we’re told.
Now onto point 2 regarding this system, which is that even if it wasn’t for show, and parties were serious about serving the public interest, the system cannot deliver what it promises - it is technically impossible to do so.
The majority after all are made of up of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people (depending on the nation in question). How can you deliver for all these people when they disagree with each other in so many different ways on what they want? How can you deliver for them when their individual circumstances vary so widely? The fact is there’s limited resources, and you can’t please everybody so someone will be let down. Indeed, even with the best of intentions, the overwhelming majority will usually be let down.
If 50.1% vote for a particular party and 49.9% vote for another party, what happens to the 49.9%? Why should they lose out? If they had gained just an extra 0.1% of the vote they would have been evenly split. So how is it fair for them to lose out on getting what they want?
What about the fact that all voters were funnelled into voting in an oligopoly-like setup with just a few major parties on offer? This means in addition to the 49.9% not getting what they want, the 50.1% may not get what they truly want either. They might have voted against the other party, which they viewed as a worse option, but that doesn’t mean they love or even like the party they voted for. It was just the lesser of two evils in their eyes, and they may only agree with 30% of what the party proposes. So how many are really served then? 20% of overall voters? What about if we count those who didn’t vote? Does that mean only 10% of eligible voters get what they truly want?
Ok then, but what about countries where it isn’t an oligopoly-like setup - where they have a proportional voting system rather than a winner takes all or first past the post system? Surely since there are more parties on offer they can better represent different viewpoints or preferences in society? Sure, in theory. But in practice it means there is deadlock and nothing gets done, or there is compromise and not the good kind. So we’re back to square one, only maybe now no one gets what they want or some people get a dismal compromise version of what they want: here’s some ice cream with ketchup. Enjoy!
So as it’s impossible to give everyone what they want and even hard to give a majority what they want, and as someone needs to get something from this system (otherwise it wouldn’t exist), then echoing my first point, political parties become strategic about who gets what they want. The people will usually get words, but the party and special interest groups will get deeds.
If you’re a politician why bother serving Mary What’s Her Face in Something Or Other Town? What’s she going to do for you? Nothing. Not only that but she’ll demand stuff from you, complain, call you an idiot, a thief, a liar. Screw that.
And if you don’t do what she wants? What are the consequences then? Nothing. The other party won’t do what she wants either, so she’s got nowhere to go - unless she gets really pissed off of course and votes for the other guys. 'But you’ll win her over again with your rhetoric at the next election. You’re sure of that.
Powerful minorities on the other hand, like corporate lobby groups and unions, if you give them what they want, they can do a lot for you. And if you don’t give them what they want? Well, they have the power and incentive to hurt you. But it would never come to that because you get along so well. They’re so different to all the Mary What’s Her Face’s out there. These people are professional, charming, interesting, intelligent, and you think so alike. It’s a no brainer - a win win. You win, they win. Mary can have the leftovers.
This is what happens in what I’ll now call the Impossible System, which supposedly represents the will of the people but can’t deliver on that will even if it wants to. It’s no wonder democratic politicians think so lowly of the public interest.
There’s a 3rd issue with this system, which is that even if you could defy logic and reality and give everyone what they want - the majority only want what they’ve been indoctrinated to want. So how can we hold them as the final guide or authority on anything? Because maybe they want kids to be able to medically transition to another gender, maybe they want free University tuition to cover their sociology degrees, maybe they want mandatory Covid lockdowns? Maybe they want all kinds of stupid or depraved things.
Today, for example, a growing number of the indoctrinated hold views which in previous eras would have had them committed to a mental asylum or ostracised from society or worse, so holding up the majority as the north star is a foolish thing to do. They’re not built to lead - they’re built to follow. Why would you make your followers your leaders? Why would you make the sheep the shepherd?
So what is the alternative then? What are we supposed to do? Let’s briefly explore this now.
What Does This All Mean?
The majority are like sheep when it comes to politics and culture. This isn’t meant as an insult; it’s a fact.
The system of voting we have is a show - with actors on all sides playing their part.
The follow on from these statements is that we must accept the majority for what they are. We will not change their nature, nor should we try to. They are as they are for good reason. We need them to be this way, otherwise society would descend into chaos and disorder. Civilisation requires stability, continuity, and a people that adhere willingly (or begrudgingly in some cases) to the status quo. We must never have contempt for the majority, we must instead accept and appreciate the function they serve. It’s an important one - the bedrock of any society.
All this said, we must also understand their limitations. We cannot turn to them to save us - that isn’t what they’re about. It’d be like asking a fish to climb a tree. We must see them as they are, not idealise them as something they have never been, and can never be.
The situation today is that the majority’s function of upholding the status quo means that bad people with destructive ideologies and terrible policies wield immense power and have free reign in our society. This establishment and their degenerate status quo must be replaced. We need to give the majority something better to uphold (even if through their fear, ignorance or indoctrination they’d initially oppose it), for if things continue as they are the present majority in Western countries will be wiped out culturally, morally, intellectually, spiritually, economically, and demographically. They’ll follow the pied piper over the edge.
As for the smoke and mirrors that is mass voting, today in the West it causes far more harm than good. Personally, I’m not attached to any one political system, but I am attached to results. I am attached to using the right tool (or system in this case) for the right job, at the right time. The wrong system today is our current one. The results produced by this system are poor, and will only get worse through time. It has run its course and is no longer appropriate.
There’s two things we need to focus on now - fixing the damage that’s been caused by the current establishment and building out a better future. Neither of these are possible under the current system, so it needs to go.
The right system then is one of true executive power exercised without recourse to polling the majority or pandering to the special interests who peddle the twin terrors of wokeism or unbridled consumerism. A system where the elite’s interests are aligned with the public interest - where if one goes down, we all go down. It’s a time for ruthless and effective action, not for dog and pony shows. All the effort that goes into keeping up the pretence that the majority have any power is just an enormous waste of energy and time.
All this leads me to this, a common refrain shared amongst the majority:
‘Focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t.’
Well that’s good advice for the majority, but the organised minority think differently (that’s minority in the numerical sense, not necessarily the ethnic sense). They focus on what they want to control - and go about taking the necessary action to make that control a reality. And so in part 2 of this piece we will examine minorities, because whilst the majority won’t save us, a minority can.
Written by Arcadius Strauss.
Watch the video version on YouTube
Listen to the audio version via Podcast
Connect with Arcadius on Twitter