Anti-Pluralistic Archetypes

Characteristic for a pluralistic society is the demand that everyone has a right expressing his opinion as long as the pluralism itself or the lives of the pluralistic society's members are not endangered through it. The goal of the social progress is to achieve moderateness without becoming mediocrity. Pluralism assumes necessary tolerance towards positions which might extremely differ to the own ones which doesn't mean at all that those positions are accepted or shared. Some archetypes are standing in strong contrast to the pluralistic point of view. To expel them could be counterproductive making them possibly bigger as they are. Instead is arguing with them the more constructive way both to preserve the pluralistic ideals and to keep the opponent powers in for everybody visible distance.

The most common anti-pluralistic archetypes are:

The right-winged revisionist. Romanticizing the 'good old times' when a strong leader was able to clean up the mess minorities or other phobia causing groups are reputed to be responsible for. In the most cases a projection of own fears or self-inflicted conditions causing discontent causing frustration causing anger. A world without draconic guidance appears as an everlasting nightmare to him. Likes order, hates chaos (due to his own lack of creativity). Can't live without an imaginary enemy who is 24/7 to blame for all and everything. His intellectual horizon ends generally at the picket fence of his property. Languishes for honor and glory rendering homage to the stronger while terrorizing the weaker. A remnant of times we've fortunately overcome.

The extreme leftist. Condemning each and every move of the institutions representing the so called Western world - US, EU, NATO - he strongly supports even those regimes which are responsible for inhuman oppression up to mass murdering their own population. They neglect the classic core of their own roots: to free the suppressed from the tyranny. How it comes that this group has totally forgotten where it originally came from? One main reason may be a misunderstood nostalgia swarming for the good old times of the Iron Curtain and that the concept of the enemy from the Cold War still exists. But they forget that in the last twenty years many has changed. The Russians and the Chinese have discovered their own way of capitalism, democracy is no longer a privilege of the Western and the frontiers between left and right moistened more and more. Maybe too much change at all for some caring for their Manichaean world view. The bad guy remains bad, therefore the so called good guy remains good, even if he is slaughtering thousands.

The religious fanatic. Hides himself behind a divine order which obviously allows him to commit in the worst case crimes against humanity. Only knows a ruthless god. Forgiveness or charity don't appear in his vocabular - at the utmost for himself or his radical fellows. His favorite term is 'blasphemy' because it legitimizes him to serve a higher command. Religious fanatics are more a tool than a part of a system, that's why most of them are unable to reflect the responsibility for their deeds. Like all radicals religious fanatics are forming a minority among the moderate majority of the particular confession but are massively damaging the reputation of the whole spiritual community.

The traditional worrier. His favorite vocable is 'but'. Nearly every sentence contains it. The worrier makes every form of urgently needed action nearly impossible. In contradiction to the traditional arguer who is capable of combining his antithesis with the thesis and forming a synthesis all the worrier wants is the delay of a decision. He could never work as a fireman, lifeguard or emergency doctor. Politics are his preferred terrain, especially if arguments against something are required. Rarely his objection is based on profund knowledge about the situation, mostly he acts halfhearted defensive. Main thing is to avoid a solution or a compromise.

The lobbyist. A type as old as the humanity itself. Supports interests - basically orientated on his own mainly materialistic ones. Gets paid or otherwise honored for his opinion. Lower classes of lobbyists are claqueurs and copycats, higher ranks can be found in economical or political decision-making positions. A quite dangerous opinion forming element because he's nearly never to be located on outwardness. Seems to represent loyality but is in fact as corrupt as the lobby he supports. Prone to undermining movements due to the circumstance that his moral is mainly related to his bank account. Easy to convince of new points of view as long as his pay check filled with a higher amount than the former one.

Maybe some may ask why the anarchists aren't mentioned here. The answer is that original anarchy is often mixed up with left-extremism. A misunderstanding that doesn't cope with anarchy per se because a real anarchist has overcome all forms of political expression before he decided that none of them fits his intellectual needs.