Beware of the Galvanized Minority


People mistakenly think that a majority of a population must believe in something for that population to change.

This is not true.

New research has found that the tipping point for large-scale social change is 25%. 

In other words, if 25% of a population is adamant about imposing some new social norm, that’s enough to cause wide-scale social change in the overall society.

This can apply to religion, culture, political belief, etc.

For example, in America, in the 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump won, even though a majority of Americans did not support him. This was mainly because of the BS with the electoral college. But this event demonstrates that a sizable minority of angry, predominantly white and Christian voters was enough to impose their political will on the nation.

This was also the case in 1933 Germany. Adolf Hitler did not have the support of the majority of the population. Only about a third of voters supported him. However, because this was a very enthusiastic, and galvanized group of people, Hitler found a way to get himself legally set up as Reich Chancellor through back-door political intrigue and so on.

Let me explain how this tipping-point law can work on a smaller scale.

Let’s say 12 people are on a field playing dodge ball. Suddenly, 3 out of the 12 people are very adamant about playing Frisbee instead, and the other 9 are apathetic. What will happen is that either the majority will end up playing Frisbee, or that the galvanized 3 will break off and form their own group.

Now imagine how this plays out with larger populations. If 25% of the population is very insistent on imposing some new social norm, and the other 75% is apathetic, or not unified, the belief of the galvanized 25% will change the dominant society.

Or if the remaining 75% is resistant, this can lead to violence.

Why am I bringing this up? Because this demonstrates why patriarchy is important. When a group has patriarchal values, that group becomes galvanized, that group is willing to fight, die and spread their ideology. When a group does not have patriarchal values, they are willing to adhere to or assimilate to the values of the invading/surrounding patriarchal group.

This is why extreme liberalism is dangerous for any society, because it erodes the values of the host culture, and opens itself up to assimilation or conquest by alien cultures.

Liberalism is not always a bad thing. But it is important for a society to have a healthy balance of conservatism and liberalism (which is why America has been successful until recently, conservative values, liberal economics/technology). Conservatism is the policy of adhering to and protecting the status quo/traditions of a society. Liberalism is the willingness to change and accept new traditions.

As life changes, sometimes it is good to accept liberal values. This can involve a change in technology, the environment, population, etc. If a society becomes rigid and unwilling to change or adapt, that can society can break/snap like a rigid stick. For example, when feudal Japan isolated itself, they did not grow, change, or develop technology with time, and eventually became conquered.

Yet if a culture becomes too liberal or decadent (like Rome in its dying days), they open themselves to be overthrown/changed by the more galvanized minority in their midst. At the beginning of the 300s, Rome was about 10% Christian. By the end of the 300s, Christianity was the predominant religion in Rome.

This is a relevant point for Europe, because many European societies are becoming too liberal, while allowing massive populations of conservative Muslims to migrate within their borders. I don’t have anything against Muslims. In fact, I have a few very good Muslim friends. However, I do recognize that when you have an incredibly liberal society like Sweden, that is allowing massive numbers of  people (young men) from very conservative societies like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia to pour into their borders, the host society must realize that they are putting their own culture at risk.

People say, “Oh this country’s Muslim population is only 5%, only 10%, that’s not a majority.” But the study I just mentioned above shows that doesn’t matter. All it takes is for a society to have a galvanized minority of 25% conservative Muslims in their midst, and this will be enough to change the society. I’m not saying that everyone in said society will magically become Muslim. But I’m saying that the society as it previously existed will change forever. This galvanized minority will push for their values to become more widespread in the host culture, which will either cause the host culture to assimilate to the whims of the minority, or this will lead to violence.

If you look at the majority Muslim countries in the world today, such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia, remember that these countries weren’t always Muslim. There were other religions and cultures there once upon a time that either got assimilated, subjugated or erased.

Or you have countries like India where the majority has not assimilated to their sizable Muslim minority, but the sizable Muslim minority still causes a good amount of conflict and violence within the predominantly Hindu society.

I’m not saying that Islam is necessarily good or bad. But I’m saying that if a culture becomes more liberal, less patriarchal, and more willing to import massive amounts of people from a more patriarchal culture within their borders, they better be prepared to see their culture forever change. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.