The Critical Mass

The Critical Mass

Created on 21 May 2014

Written by Rebel of Oz

Introduction

Throughout history, wise thinkers such as Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche have deplored human herd mentality and herd behaviour. And it's true. Humans - in many ways - act similarly to herd animals. The vast majority of us stays in bigger or smaller groups within the herd, known as society. Only very few stray, some because they are weak and get left behind, others as the result of a crisis or because they don't get along. Each group within the herd can be distinct from the rest of the herd. They differ by age, education, ethnicity, religion, profession, gender, interests, rank and status. But when the herd moves, most of the time, all groups move in sync. Very rarely, a group within the herd stays behind or deliberately separates from the herd.

It is interesting to observe how herds change direction. It's not as simple as the highest ranking animal choosing which way to go and all the other animals follow. In large herds the process is far more complex than that. There are multiple groups within the herd that can trigger a change of direction by start moving that way.

Not all groups though are able to make the herd move into a different direction. They are too small and too lowly ranked. However, if a small but highly ranked group starts moving, larger and lower ranked groups usually follow their lead. Also, if a larger but not very highly ranked group pulls in a certain direction, sometimes one of the smaller but more powerful groups like the idea and follow them, causing the rest of the herd to come along.

Considering herd mentality and behaviour is important for political activists. We don't necessarily have the group size and power to directly cause much of a change. We know from social science that for change to occur, we need a critical mass of 16-20% of the population to support us. We can tell that we have been unable to enrol such a large percentage, because the herd has not moved yet in the direction we want it to go.

Even though fellow truthseekers have been able to provide ample of high-quality evidence for an ever growing number of outrageous government conspirancies, we couldn't change anything. We are still lied to about almost everything. None of the conspirators have gone to jail. And the conspiracies keep coming, in fact they are getting worse. So what can we do? 

Option A: Grow organically

We can try to grow the number of our followers by recruiting more of the same kind of people. Given how long it took us to recruit the 4-5% of people we have convinced so far, and that's being optimistic, in my honest opinion we are running out of time. It took us 10 years, to get to the current level of consciousness and I very much doubt we have another 10-20 years.

There is also the problem that the vast majority of people is unable or unwilling to listen to our messages. They live in a state of permanent delusion. Only depressed people are able to see the truth and make the necessary changes. In other words, things would have to become much worse for many more people, before we can reach a critical mass of people and enrol them in our cause. By then, so much damage will have already been done, I'm afraid it's already too late.

Option B: Form alliances

Forming alliances obviously increases our numbers and gets us closer quicker to reaching the critical mass needed. It is the equivalent of one group of the herd enticing another bigger or higher ranked group to head the same way.

So how can we entice people who don't necessarily agree with everything we believe in to follow our lead? We must work out our common interests, agree on common goals, and define a strategy all sides are happy with.

The downside of alliances is that they force us to compromise. This is not necessarily a problem, but depending on the balance of power and the level of integrity of the parties involved, it can very well be.

Option C: Grow exponentially

The quickest way to grow the number of followers is to promote our ideas to people who previously wouldn't listen to us. The main reason why so many people avoid us, is not that they have been brainwashed to think that we are crazy or 'anti-Semites', but that we are coming across as being negative and bitter, and make other people feel just as depressed. 'Normal', 'healthy' people prefer listening to people who make them feel better, not worse. No matter how bad the problems are we are dealing with, there are always different ways of packaging the bad news. We can spread doom and gloom and make people want to commit suicide, or we can 'sell' them an inspiring, uplifting and energising vision at the same time as telling them gently how bad things are. Which of the two approaches, you think, is going to gain us more support? And remember, there is always a way to sugar coat even the worst tasting medicine.

Summary 

This is not about right or wrong, but about strategy. There is no reason, why we can't choose all three options, except that we need numbers, a critical mass of 1/6 of the population, and our resources are limited. It's critical for the success of our mission to focus our efforts on the strategy which is the most likely to succeed.

The target market of Option A is the desperate and borderline suicidal, a small, albeit growing demographics. They are the easiest to convince, but the hardest to motivate, because they are too depressed.

The target market of B is activists who only partly agree with us, but - for some reason - have decided to cooperate. Again, a small but growing group, as long as we play our cards right. They are much easier to motivate, but will only support us with those parts of our agenda they are agreeing with. 

The target market of Option C is basically everybody else, except for the establishiment, in other words, by far, the biggest group. They are the most likely to agree with us and support us, as long as we package our vision right.