From Rowling to Ronaldo: the all-determining power of decorum

This interesting message just came across, from J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter.

“I promise you this: in ten years' time, a lot of women who are now pushing the gender identity agenda will claim they were always TERFs - just like people who pretend they survived terrorist attacks when they were never even close to them.”

Feminism

TERF stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Rowling claims that those who are now opportunistically going along with gender ideology in order to preserve their careers, status, and/or “ally” points will claim in the future that they were always critical of it. A bit like how, after World War II, almost everyone suddenly claimed to have been in the resistance.

As for the truth of Rowling's claim, I strongly doubt it. There is a good chance that feminism will soon cease to exist altogether. Simply because Muslims, closely followed by orthodox Christians, are demographically overtaking the left-wing progressives: a group that is already reluctant to have children because of their ‘ecological footprint’ and ‘impact on the climate’.

Docility

But that's not what I want to talk to you about. I want to talk to you about decorum. Because what Rowling is getting at is that people are not very steadfast. They just make things up and opportunistically adopt opinions. They look around and try to imitate what they see. If an ideology is in vogue, they copy that ideology in order to ‘fit in’ and ‘not be left out’.

That's a hugely important point, and I want to dwell on it with you. Just think of the experiment involving a group of people who had to estimate how long a meter is. Most of the people in the room were paid actors who deliberately exaggerated: they took a length of two meters and called it a meter. The people who were not acting went along with it and chose larger sizes, even though they knew better. The urge to conform socially proved stronger than individual judgment.

When people are docile and copy each other just a little, widely held views are little more than echoes and mirror images. Pro-trans today, anti-trans tomorrow: it just depends on which way the wind blows, which is exactly what Rowling is pointing out. Now the question is where originality comes from. What is the source of new ideas?
 

The original source of originality

Here we must refer to The Fountainhead (1943) by philosopher Ayn Rand. Literally: the eternal source, that source representing the primal point from which new insights and ideas are unlocked. Geniuses and visionaries are rare and lonely—their ideas trickle down to the masses only in small doses. Rand describes how the history of ideas is actually a war between artistic elites for the soul of the masses, who are incapable of original thinking themselves.

To illustrate this, the book tells the life story of the brilliant architect Howard Roark. Through this character's struggles, the author shows how an idea, however valuable, cannot simply enjoy social interest. There is a whole power structure surrounding this, because ideas have to pass through a tollgate of social gatekeepers.

Decorum: the pivotal point 

Now we have come to the point I want to discuss with you: decorum. Because, as just described, those ideas are either made important and visible, or they are ignored and pushed to the margins. It does not matter how talented the artist is. Roark is surrounded by mediocre architects who win all kinds of awards, while he is overlooked.

Most people have little internal baggage, and when they hear a piece of music or analyze architecture, for example, they have no idea on what basis to judge it. They have no feeling for the internal qualities that elevate a work above mediocrity. So they think: the musician performed on a talk show, stood on a stage, I'm sure I won't make a fool of myself if I affiliate myself with this.

This situation is very similar to what Paul Cliteur observed about the policy of bookstores in the Netherlands: books expressing the views of Jesse Klaver and Femke Halsema are displayed next to the cash register, while right-wing books are tucked away in a corner at the back of the store. This is all a deliberate tactic to establish normality through the decorum of placement.
 

Cristiano Ronaldo & Joshua Bell

Two more examples to underscore this point. World-famous soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo disguised himself as a random guy and started playing soccer with people on the street. He did all his famous tricks, but at most attracted the attention of a child, while the rest walked by unsuspectingly. When he revealed himself, many wanted to take a picture with him...

World-famous violinist Joshua Bell played in the subway and barely attracted any attention from passers-by. They did not notice his exceptional talent, even though he had sold out a theatre in Boston the day before, where attendees paid a hundred dollars for a seat.

These two examples prove that it is the setting, the stage—whether it be the soccer field of professional soccer or the theatre—that allows the masses to recognize and appreciate talent as talent. Whoever possesses the setting possesses the power to determine the future of culture.

Relationship market

It is no coincidence that Rowling is talking about women. Renzo Verwer wrote about the love market and noted that musicians have a lot of sex, simply because the musician is on stage and, by virtue of his profession, is the centre of attention. This automatically means validation and appreciation from the group. Verwer wrote something like: “Pick up that instrument, step onto the stage, and start playing; you'll see how the breasts and buttocks sway your way as if by magic.” 

And if I have to translate this into my own context, I can only confirm it. Where did I meet my girlfriends? I once spoke about my book at the FVD’s youth wing, I presented a book at FVD itself, and I spoke in the Provincial Council chamber. Relationships arose from this, and it is certainly no coincidence that all those contacts started from an unequal relationship. I was the ‘expert’, the writer, the speaker, and the women in question were organisers or visitors.

Evolution and social approval

Afterwards, the ladies naturally deny that it had anything to do with decorum, but it's all too coincidental for that. I would even dare to say that many of them have more of a relationship with decorum than with the man in question.

If we look at evolution, men can survive outside the group a little more easily than women: it is also the men who break away from groups and find new ones, thus ensuring an influx of fresh genes. So it is not surprising that women are even more dependent on group consensus and group validation than men in terms of their actions and thinking. Their default mode is often to first gauge what the group thinks about something and only then come to an individual judgment.
 

Destroy the enemy's decorum

No matter how brilliant or talented you are, Cristiano Ronaldo and Joshua Bell prove that it will not be noticed unless you start with decorum. That is the only starting point for building something with a chance of success. The same applies to relationships, because women still long for a man they can admire. And that admiration is often not something that comes from their own “inner source,” their inner “fountainhead,” but something they copy from what they see manifested as social consensus.

The lesson here is that you don't win the debate by presenting better arguments and facts. The audience has little idea what you're talking about. They judge based on superficialities: “Gosh, that cute blonde lady in the audience looks happy (or unhappy) when he speaks.” If you want to win the battle, you have to destroy your opponent's decorum.