We are told it would be terrible to be “on the wrong side of history”, which is another way of saying whoever wins a war is morally righteous and deserves sham pledges of loyalty for toppling the previous order.
Revolutionaries are quick to utter this demoralizing propaganda to normalize their reckless acts, while the forces driving culture wars send millions of useful idiots into battle promising to overturn standards held since the beginning of civilization.
These agitators eager to make history through their actions expect to prevail, though few of them ever experienced any success or excellence in the actual world. They are all bluff, noise, phony posturing, fake outrage, and passive aggression.
The standards they propose possess neither a new capability nor new idea, while delegitimizing desirable and historically proven forms. They tell us they will win, and smugly suggest we should therefore stand aside, declare surrender, and accept their dictated demands.
They propose idealistic fantasies as a solution to genuine problems, and though it is possible to spend fortunes gathered from tax payers and pass laws requiring people to act out these fantasies, this merely props up illusion with flimsy scaffolding. At some point reality will rudely intrude with ruthless mockery of this farce.
If the action they seek to mandate was beneficial, rational people would choose it without law requiring them to do so. The first few supporters yielding beneficial results would start a wave of copy-cats seeking the same advantage for themselves. No coercion or threats of force would be needed.
As no demonstrable benefit exists and no rational advantage can be credibly asserted, advocates attack by accusing all non-believers of harboring extreme irrationality that cannot be mediated by intellectual means, and therefore requires the imposition of law to force all to accept a position that is claimed to be substantially advantageous, though the supposed gains can’t be explained and most oppose these changes as undesirable.
Opposition to these new measures is ignored, whether the concern is personal harm, degradation of society, moral objections, religious principles, or philosophical recognition that evidence is entirely lacking for the claim that benefit should be expected from these changes.
Once debunked by rational examination, advocates will describe the new laws as being benign, and promise they will have no net effect, which makes their vigorous fight for binding legislation to nullify centuries of standards seems like overkill to achieve a non-result. Doing nothing so that no errors are introduced accomplishes the same without agitating the public, undermining trust, and sidetracking a government which is intended to act on behalf of citizens.
As public discussion on the plan highlights the lack of evidence for any advantage, advocates will claim neither is there evidence for harm because the experiment has never been attempted, and therefore we should try it on ourselves to find out what happens. They will say many people want it and will be angry if it isn’t done, again precluding a reason or consideration of its consequences.
With these politics, it’s a mob all the way down.
We’ve seen these tactics before, and they are merely tactics without a basis in reason, science, or improvements in quality. By deferring each time to the same propaganda techniques, attacks and false promises in an effort to create history, the mob has overreached in their attempt to overthrow standards that have stood the test of time.
As there remains plenty of history to still be written, and their baseless experiments are likely to fail once played out, society will do its best to absorb these blows before gradually restoring its institutions. Its path will allow it to discover the healthiest system, eventually deciding upon something close to what we already figured out before, inevitably restoring the traditional form that was originally reached through the same comparative measurements for robust results.
These confused and angry outbursts share a similar origin and the healthy parts of society both refrain from contract with rebels and shelter away from any effects caused by the fruitless attempt at remaking the world.
With good nature, we would do well to advise those cheering for the mob that they should not want to be on the wrong side of history by joining a group with such an abysmal record of errors and oversights. Their proposed improvements for civilization are poised to fail and be remembered as an embarrassing mistake with which no one should desire association.