To become extraordinary people, we can’t behave in ordinary ways

By David McElroy · November 2, 2021

If you want to be like everybody else, just imitate the behavior of everyone around you. If you want to be an ordinary family, conform to what you see other families do. If like what you see in the culture around you — and you want to become a reflection of that — act in the ways the culture dictates.

You will become just like the people around you. And you and your children will end up just as dysfunctional as the culture to which you’re allowing yourself to conform.

But what if you want to become extraordinary instead? What if you want your family to have the love, connection and stability you don’t see in ordinary families?

You can choose to be extraordinary. You can be emotionally healthy in a dysfunctional world. You can make conscious choices about what your life will be. But that requires sacrifices. You can’t take the easy way of simply “fitting in.” You have to make hard choices — and it requires you to be constantly at war with a sick and brutal culture which demands mindless conformity.

There are multiple paths to becoming extraordinary. Few people will bother to find any of those paths, but even fewer will find — and then choose — the path I’ve taken.

My choices might not be right for you, but at every step, I’ve made choices that have made my life more difficult — choices which have left me at odds with the expectations which are routine in postmodern America.

Are my choices the right ones? For me, yes. For the people I want to be closest to, yes. I would recommend my choices as reasonable and rational — but I can’t make choices for you.

What are the sorts of choices I’ve made that leave me at odds with my culture?

— I choose the ideas of the Enlightenment over Modernism or Postmodernism. This was a choice I made before I even understood the nature of the choice. Reason and liberalism pushed the human race forward in ways that were unimaginable before brave souls started daring to make common individuals and families more important than the elites who had always ruled by force and threats.

Those Enlightenment ideas fueled the rise of freedom which changed the world, but the Postmodern ideas which arose in parallel with Marxism have given us a nightmarish backlash against reason and individual choice. The culture and politics of group hatred are gradually marginalizing the freedoms which opened opportunity to all who seek it.

— I reject the notion that governments are fit to raise our children. I grew up with the assumption that “public schools” were a universal good. Both of my parents started their careers as teachers and my mother taught at an inner city elementary school until she retired. Every school I attended was founded by governments and funded by taxes taken from people against their will. I assumed this was all right and good.

But I have come to understand that this system is ultimately destructive to children and perpetuates institutional control by politically radical elites. The fundamental problems with this system existed before I was even born, but I was blind to them when I was growing up, simply because it was the only “normal” I’d ever known.

As the forces of the radical left take firmer and firmer control of government-operated schools, I’ve come to understand that turning a child over to be raised by such a system is a silent and widely accepted form of child abuse. Some of what our children are being subjected to these days is sickening.

— I reject the lifestyle choices which consumption-focused media are eager to sell us. There is an unspoken conspiracy among politicians, media and big business to sell us a lifestyle which is unhealthy for us, but which fuels consumption and production. There’s a widespread acceptance of the notion that massive consumption is good for everyone. It helps media sell ads, which help consumer-driven companies sell products — which allows those companies to hire more people, produce more products and give more money to politicians to enable the entire rotten system.

Conspicuous consumption and accumulation of material “toys” is promoted everywhere you look. It’s in movies and television shows. It’s in the ads that bombard us with new “needs” which we are told we must buy products to fill. Governments throw money at the big companies which will build factories and stores and distribution centers in their areas, because it will mean more tax revenue for politicians to spend. Politicians compete to spend money on sports facilities to benefit the wealthy owners of professional sports franchises.

And the beer commercials are there to let you know you’re not living a “high life” unless you’re getting drunk with your friends. I’ve argued that the consumption of alcohol is irrational and deadly, but it generates so much money for politicians and the companies selling this lifestyle that few people ever even question the assumption that it’s great.

I’ve made the choice to live a socially conservative lifestyle, not because it makes me better than anyone, but because it’s healthier in so many ways, both physically and emotionally.

— I reject the intrusion of electronic media which unintentionally shape our thoughts. It’s been about 25 years since I gave up watching television for the most part. I don’t even own a television anymore. (The only things I still watch are football and basketball.) There are times when people tell me I should “give TV another chance,” because there are a lot of great shows today. They’ve missed the point of my objection to the medium.

I realize there are a lot of really well-done television shows — including some I’ve loved myself — but when this slowly takes over your life, it reshapes how you consume information. This change dumbs you down and makes it less likely that you’ll read books — the sort with complex arguments and ideas which are impossible to present on television. (It was reading Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” which opened my eyes to the dangers of giving up the “typographic culture” for the newer electronic culture. I strongly recommend the book, and I’ll get a tiny commission if you buy it through that link.)

I still read books. I beg people to read books and turn off their screens more often. I beg people to allow their children to grow up around parents who read for pleasure, because that is going to lay the foundation for what those children think is normal as become adults. If they see parents who routinely read for their own pleasure — and if they experience families reading together — they’re going to see this as normal and good. If they associate reading with the drudgery of their school textbooks, there’s little hope they will ever become readers.

I could go on and on. All of these choices — and others — make me an oddball in this culture. But each of these choices has been a conscious decision to become someone different from the sort of person which our dysfunctional culture presents as normal.

I have chosen to believe this human life has meaning — and that meaning goes beyond the shallow and materialistic things which our culture is eager to sell to me. And that makes me a freak by the standards of the culture.

I want to be extraordinary. I want to live a life of reason and love and meaning. I don’t want to mindlessly accept what politicians and selfish people demand that I buy. And I want family and friends who are willing to make the same difficult choices.

If some of us are willing to stand out today — to be extraordinary instead of mindlessly conforming — I believe the human race can get through the dark and dysfunctional days we face right now.

I believe there can be a better future for humanity, but only if enough of us can make extraordinary choices today — to keep a candle burning that will become a roaring fire of reform when the world is finally ready.

It’s a difficult choice to make, but I think it makes for a more loving and emotionally healthy life for the few who choose that beautiful path.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts