Pluralism finally separates the majority from the anti-majoritarians

Watching the great Western experiment with democracy wind down, it now becomes clear how pluralism — the idea that we all agree to disagree, and have many groups disagreeing peacefully with each other in the name of a collage of diverse and interesting viewpoints — has run down and ultimately left us with two groups: the majority, and the anti-majoritarians.

In simple terms, the majority are those indigenous or native to a nation, and who need no “ideology” other than their own culture and interest in perpetuating themselves. The anti-majoritarians are those who don’t fit in, or want to fit in but on their own terms, and so wish to dissolve this majority and replace it with the pluralistic herd.

At first, they pitch this to us as the idea that many groups of different interests exist simultaneously. The majority likes this because it means they get to keep being themselves, only society adds some exciting layers. In reality, every layer represents a displacement, and the end result of the displacement is the creation of a permanent Other who hate the majority for being well-adjusted.

This other takes a negative form, meaning it is defined by what it is not. It is not of a culture, or heritage. It is not of a values system. It is not of a group — it is an anarchistic mass of individuals. But it even destroys that notion. Anarchy does not provide what it ultimately wants, which is for society to be forced to accept it and, as part of that, be forced to subsidize it.

With the Obama election the pluralist anti-majoritarians promised us that race relations would improve, we’d be “post-racial,” and in our new enlightenment we’d live in peace. Once in power, they did nothing but race to replace the majority with imported citizens, a new elite of government and private non-profit liberal ideologues, and new neurotic generations of kids raised on government propaganda in schools.

This event was seen as the culmination of the promise of the work of many generations, starting back a decade after our nation was formed. These groups saw the majority as bad, and exclusive, and so agitated for the inclusion of at first those close to the majority, all the way out to those totally alien to them. This liberal horde has agitated for successive additions to and dilution of the majority.

And now, with the Obama II election, the agenda has become clear. All those who want to think they’re dispossessed, which usually means those with either too much money and nothing to do, or too little money and no will to change their behaviors thus a need for government subsidy, are gathering with him. Their goal is simple: crush the majority once and for all.

All of the West is watching this election. It is a symbolic choice, more than anything. It comes down to a binary measurement: do we want something more like conservatism, or more like liberalism? All those who claim that the two parties are the same are missing the point, since these two similar parties each suggest which direction things will go after the election. The momentum will increase and that which is 10% conservative or liberal today will be 50% of the same four years later, just as it was with Obama.

Whoever wins will carry a mandate to expand upon the relatively mild policies discussed during election time, and to go farther toward the ideal that each side represents — much as elections in Europe do. The conservatives stand for the policies that benefit the majority, and the liberals stand for everyone else and the crushing of the majority. Whose side are you on?

13 Responses to “Pluralism finally separates the majority from the anti-majoritarians”

  1. NotTheDude says:

    What the hell is a minority anyway? A group that lives along side one or more bigger, more assertive groups (there must be a ‘top dog’ though). Why? Because it is easier to live with the protection and products of a larger industrious group. A strong group would have no need of such help. No minority ever came to live with another group just to be friends. Stop being the enabler and balance is restored. I say just treat the term ‘minority’ as merely a name for a smaller group as is it’s original meaning and not one to mean a down and out friend.

  2. crow says:

    “Whose side am I on?”
    Hmmm. That’s a tough one.
    Let me get back to you after I’ve figured it out.

  3. Eric says:

    This made me think of an experience I had yesterday while getting on the bus yesterday. Not that this is a universal thing, but I have seen many variations on the theme. A Mexican (I assume) mother with her at least three kids gave me the cold, hard stare-through look. I see it a lot in that community. Many have no interest but their own and I am sure many in their own minds are thinking, “haha, we’re taking over.” I have increasingly soured on the whole PC, multiculturalist agenda the more I have been paying attention. Don’t get me wrong, there are good for nothing trash “white” people and decent folks that would fall outside that racial classification. But I am certain we are headed for a future with too many rats in a cage, pretty much in a balkanized state (actually, we are already there in many parts of the country.) If people could just at least recognize and talk about the possibility (well, many are.) I think dealing with reality, no matter how “inconvenient”, is the most positive thing a person can do. I am so tired of people calling one negative for pointing out painful truths. I find denial highly negative and negating of life. Negating of life, what could be more negative than that?

  4. […] Excellent essay by Brett Stevens. […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>