Any casual observer of the politics of Western nations since at least the victory of liberal democracy in World War II will notice that, with a near perfect success rate, new social liberation causes the left embarks on tend to succeed. Even more worryingly to us on the political right, the speed at which they succeed is increasing.
Some examples from the US:
-Fighting southern animus towards black political power took a century.
-The ridicule of socially conservative views on sex and a woman’s role in the culture took a few decades to gain widespread acceptance.
-The fight to liberate gays from the closet took decades.
-Gay marriage was made the law of the land by the Supreme Court to the thunderous applause of the majority just 11 years after Bush was reelected largely on the issue of stopping its spread.
-Five years ago, celebrating childhood sex dysphoria and celebrating the inclusion of sick men in the women’s bathroom was unthinkable. Now major corporations boycott states that resist.
This trend must be stopped, and to stop it we must understand it.
The left would have you think this trend is the inevitable progressive march of history, but this is not actually an explanation. Instead, this is an attempt by the left to seem more powerful than they are by claiming to be on the side of some immutable law of nature.
The truth is that this trend can be understood as the domesticated populations of a liberal democracy having a threshold for conflict. The people are only willing to endure so much of the left's attacks in the political and cultural spheres before deciding it is easier to side with the social inclusion of a new group rather than continue the draining exercise of waging a cultural battle, even if in the absence of said conflict they would deem this inclusion to be detrimental. A subconscious decision is eventually made that the discomforts of being in constant disagreement with virtually all media they consume is too taxing and the only reward they can see coming from their continued opposition is a loss of social status. They now ask themselves, "Why not just include (x) group? What’s the worst that could happen?"
At this point the decision being made is no longer whether or not the inclusion of one group or another is advantageous, but whether or not it is disastrous enough to merit continuing the uncomfortable task of opposition. As a result the right is asked to prove beyond doubt that this new social revolution will result in abject chaos. Now the playing field in the political sphere is insurmountably uneven.
The left's explanation for the increase in the rate of cultural successes isn't much different than their explanation for the trend itself. They drone on about some murky concept of inevitability and occasionally praise education as a cause between reminding us of the dire state the public school system is in. A better explanation is twofold. Our enemies in the press and entertainment are growing more consolidated and that every time some group that had been alienated from Western society is 'liberated,' they as a subversive element naturally align themselves with with the subversives- the left.
The consolidation of media is not in question. In 1950, fifty companies were in control of 90% of media in the US. As of 2012 that number is six. There is a vast coincidence, of course, regarding the representation of our Jewish friends in the ownership roles of these six companies, and, with so much of the media under the control of so few it is easier than ever for them to smack everyday people in the face with the latest liberation struggle.
Because of this the propaganda becomes more efficient and each new liberated group is added to the ranks of the political left. Even those who don’t agree specifically with the next item on the left’s agenda, as was the case with blacks and gay liberation, add to the power of the political machine that promotes it. The crafters of the culture feed the political establishment and the political establishment returns the favor when the next cause is decided on. The snowball rolls on.
This snowball can be stopped though. In addition to our already stellar propaganda, I propose the following:
Our enemies; the press, the entertainment industry, and the leftist political interests, are comprised of revolutionaries who thrive only in the environment of social conflict. The revolution, for them, must be eternal. No matter how often the population capitulates to a call for inclusion in order to live more comfortably in the immediate, some new conflict is already percolating. If the people know that there will be no peace bought from surrender, surrender will seem far less desirable. When the people realize the left will make them uncomfortable with some new conflict regardless, the measure of whether or not to back the new civil rights cause becomes a question of whether it is advantageous to them and not whether the results will be so bad that it is worth bearing the discomfort of opposition. Only then can we even the political playing field.
Fortunately for us, the population is starting to become aware of this to some degree, as evidenced by the victories of Brexit and Trump by populations repeatedly browbeaten into accepting a rapid fire induction of sicker and more alien people into the cultural mainstream.
The question of, “is this advantageous for us?” was explored more openly than it had been in a generation with the motto America First. “Is having illegals remain in our country good for us?” the people asked. The media lashed out wildly trying to remind them that the question they should be asking is, “Given suffering of the poor children of illegals, would amnesty really be a total disaster though?”
So go out and spread your memes. Go plaster our propaganda all over campuses. Foster a racial pride in your friends and family. Remind people like us that they are not alone.
But always remind those you are persuading that regardless of how the conflict ends, there will always be another.