You're using quite a broad brush with "non-conformist," so I'll assume you're referring to Roman Christian martyrdom. The perception of Christians in that era was more or less that they were being coerced to libel Christ and suppress his memory, who moreover had the vital Answer for humankind; and to dissolve their brotherhoods as conspiratorial organizations, including by incriminating friends and family and (in time, certainly by Diocletian) to libel their ancestors. This is quite different from the modern, essentially Reformation, view of them, which is that they were ideologues with an obstinate disinclination to lose the argument. Another misconception is that they were under continuous persecution, when in fact Roman enforcement was more like a limited number of notorious showdowns well spread out over time and terrain; however, this one is not just a modern view but was also promoted by fairly early hagiographers[0]. Finally, resisting even per the rationale I've described was quite controversial, and not all Christians refused to capitulate, even after it had become an established religious concept and practice. For example, see the Donatist controversy in re traditores[1].
The idea that Christianity equates to "very very clean" scholarship regarding "original texts" would surprise most Christians in most periods. It's also not plain to me how this could even amount to a religion, considering all the practical, anthropological value adherents naturally expect one to provide.
Executive fiat, given the right executive body, and undergirded by healthy autarkies or other cell-type self-direction, worked well in most locales for most of the years humans have been humans. Certain flashy civilizations, Sumer, Greece, have tended to draw the spotlight incommensurately with their population sizes. But even these functioned much more like what I describe above than anything modern.
I found this one of the more entertaining formulations of "back to the land" style sentiments that I have ever come across here, so the downvotes you are getting aside, I thank you for the humor.
There were and have always been trading and other exchanges all over the world. The Egtved girl was traveling from north to central Germany, probably for marriage. Now, if we mean most people did not do this, then sure. But there's a persistent idea that ancient cultures were not in contact with each other, and this is largely disproven.
In Hades, yes. Vanishingly few of us actually control our fates or societies even to a small extent. The modern tendency to think like we do is a form of mania. By indulging it, we damage the only control we really have, our relative health and peace of mind.
Pretending that you don't have a part to play in the fate of society is escapism at best, and learned helplessness at worst. Democracy is explicitly a system that functions off of the sum of individual participation, and if the quality of that participation is poor it will produce bad outcomes even barring subversion by other powers. Pessimism like yours cedes control entirely to those who would take it through undemocratic means, and the result will be a markedly worse world.
You don’t have a part to play of any value to anyone outside of your direct orbit. Nothing you can do will impact history. You will be forgotten shortly after your death. There is no afterlife, you’re nothing more special than a bug other than being complex enough to think that you are.
Just live your life however you want, you only get one, and it’ll be brief.
I'll admit I'm assuming that you are writing with the intent for your words to be read, understood, and integrated in some capacity into other minds. That is, you are engaging in communication. The contents of your communication are an argument, advice to think about and participate in the world in a certain way. Perhaps this was a total accident, though, and you didn't mean to convince anyone of anything, and were merely pressing keys at random, in which case I apologize for reading intent into your actions.
How do you square this opinion with the fact that people actually do get voted into office and enact policies with grand repercussions on history and society?
Political movements can certainly be an important factor of modern power given the right instigators, but transferring the importance to oneself is, again, damaging mania.
>Democracy is explicitly a system that functions off of the sum of individual participation, and if the quality of that participation is poor it will produce bad outcomes even barring subversion by other powers
We don't live in a democracy. We live in plutocracy where people with capital and influence have an outsized influence on policy.
0. https://www.ifixit.com/products/iphone-13-mini-battery
reply