i read a blog post yesterday that addressed a method of finding people who have a similar worldview and gathering them in the fastest way possible. The post was written by a very successful blogger and his suggestion was somewhat unique in my mind. Basically, he advised that you should 1) pick a divisive and controversial topic, 2) choose a position on the topic, 3) write with passion about your choice and stand-by your choice, 4) watch the fireworks ensue, and 5) the people who share your worldview will surround you.
It seems to me that this is only one way to gather a group of likeminded people. Now, there are other and slower methods of gathering a tribe that don’t require the use of a divisive topic to find those who share a similar worldview, and I had to ask why would or should I antagonize people who disagree with me in order to surround myself in an echo chamber of thought. Some might say that critical thought requires our worldview to be challenged, and I do agree with this fact.
A person enters a university hoping to learn from different points of view. You should not expect to leave a college with the same worldview as when you entered. If you’re a conservative Christian or a raging liberal communist, you should graduate from a university with an altered point of view on any particular subject.
The danger on the modern campus is that many students seem to believe that their worldview is sacrosanct and not subject to dispute. If you disagree with their view of the world, then you become subject to ridicule, ad hominem attack, shout-down protests, and physical violence. You’ll be called a racist bigot for expressing a belief that equal opportunity is just that – an equal opportunity.
I think it’s a natural human tendency to avoid conflict in interpersonal relationships, and when someone attacks you for your worldview in a violent and aggressive manner, the natural instinct is to recoil and reconsider your position. Objective critical thought is not violent or aggressive, and a thinking person would not react to a differing opinion using such tactics.
This is the trick used by those not interested in debate, or learning, or growth. They have adopted Saul Alinsky’s 12 rules for radicals. They rely upon you – a decent human being – using your natural instinct of recoil from violent, aggressive conflict.
In today’s current events, one might study why Donald Trump is successful. Mr. Trump is a decent human being who is not intimidated by rules used by radicals, nor does he succumb to their use of personal insults, ridicule, or violent threats and tactics. Mr. Trump is successful on the campaign trial because he is unfazed and says what everyone is thinking, regardless of the “perception” and false reality relied upon by radicals to influence the masses.
So, in the end – I have to agree with the blog post referenced in the original paragraph. Mr. Trump is the epitome of someone who chooses to address divisive and controversial subjects, takes a position based upon reality and not perception, without fear of ridicule, and without regard to his safety.
The radicals believes that power originates from money and people, and they rely heavily on the use of intimidation tactics using misinformed and gullible youth to achieve their goals. Unfortunately for the radicals, knowledge is the true source of all power – and this explains how Mr. Trump is able to acquire and surround himself with people who share his worldview.
The radicals have already lost, they just don’t know it yet.