The best arguments (I’ve come up with) in favor of moderation are A. humans are imperfect, so let’s be careful, and B. Let’s avoid holiness spirals. The best argument against it is that sometimes moderatism doesn’t work, either.
But we haven’t defined what moderatism is.
People are generally moderates for four reasons:
- They are not very bright, and so cannot understand political or economic arguments well enough to decide whether, say, global warming is real or the budget needs to be balanced, so they don’t.
- They are bright enough to evaluate arguments, but they aren’t interested. Economics bores them. So they don’t bother.
- They can evaluate arguments and they care, but their opinions don’t slot neatly into “left” or “right”–for example, they may believe simultaneously in fiscal conservatism and gay marriage.
- They just like the status quo.
The last group bugs the crap out of me.
There are lots of people who say they want something–say, an end to global warming, or more pie–but won’t actually do anything in support of their goals, like buy a more fuel efficient car or fruit filling. There are also a lot of people who say that they want something–libertarianism, say–but then claim not to want to end up at the logical end of the libertarian road. (Pot smokers who don’t want free association, I’m looking at you.) Plenty of people who supported the Russian Revolution merely wanted to end that awful war with Germany and redistribute some of the land and wealth, not starve millions of Ukrainians to death and turn the whole country into a communist nightmare, but that’s what the revolution got them.
Claiming you want a moderate outcome while supporting an approach that leads somewhere very different is the height of either dishonesty or idiocy.
But back to our question, I think we can define a “moderate” as:
- Someone who takes a position between two extremes, (consciously or unconsciously,) often trying to promote consensus;
- Someone who wants to preserve the status-quo;
- Someone who wants to move in a particular direction, but doesn’t embrace their philosophy’s extreme end.
It would probably amuse most readers of this blog to know that I think of myself as a “moderate.” After all, I hold a lot of ideas that are well outside the American mainstream. But my goals–long-term stability, health, and economic well-being for myself, my friends, family, and the country at large–are pretty normal. I think most people want these things.
But I don’t think continuing the status quo is getting us stability, health, prosperity, etc. The status quo could certainly be worse–I could be on fire right now. But the general trends are not good and have not been good for a long time, and I see neither the traditional “liberal” nor “conservative” solutions as providing a better direction–which is why I am willing to consider some radically new (or old) ideas. (Besides, “moderate” is much easier to explain to strangers than, “I think democracy is deeply flawed.”)
Let’s call this “meta-moderatism”–perhaps we should distinguish here between moderatism of means and moderatism of goals.
Just as holiness spirals only work if you’re actually spiraling into holiness, so consensus only works if you capture actual wisdom.
I think Scott Alexander (of Slate Star Codex) is the most famous principled moderate I know of, though perhaps principled neutralist is a better description–he tries to be meta-consistent in his principles and give his opponents the benefit of the doubt in order to actually understand why they believe what they do–because “moderate” seems vaguely inaccurate to describe any polyamorist.
It occurs to me that democracy seems inclined toward moderatism of means, simply because any candidate has to get a majority (or plurality) of people to vote for them.
… You know what? I’m bored. I’m going to research rare forms of lightning.
(This case actually caused by snow and wind, not a thunderstorm!)
Should it be “elf lightning” or “lightning elves”?
(same source as the previous picture.)
evolutionistx 
Building consensus is for chicks or dudes who lost there man psrts
LikeLike
Strong alliances win wars.
LikeLike
Even then its the stronger partner leading the weak
When you look at ww2,( a European war the usa should not have been involved in) most of the upper level chain of command problems were centered around consensus building. Ike excelled at that stuff but at the same time we let the British drive some questionable decisions ( also complelty aware of the advantages of hindsight etc)
A better example for your point would have been George Washington ; )
LikeLike
Part of the problem is that our language makes moderation impossible. Conservatives ought to be inherently moderate, but any resistance to disorder, since the enlightenment, has registered as reactionary. I’m not sure how well acquainted you are with Moldbug and D&D, but his short essay about dungeons and dragons alignment is clarifying on this issue. Knowledge seems to be a stand-in for wisdom for most folks, but our complicated linguistic labels, and knowledge and mastery over them, is a severe impediment to understanding this issue.
Also, lightning is pretty cool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lightning is cool. :)
I have read Moldbug’s D&D essay. It doesn’t stand very well on its own, but I think I understand what he is getting at. To use a second, childish metaphor, if we consider Pinkie Pie (sorry, small children have been watching cartoons today,) as “chaotic good” in D&D terms, sure, Pinkie and the show’s creators consider Pinkie good. But actually chaotic behavior (as opposed to mere cheerfulness) is destructive. Taken literally, chaos in your food supply chain => famine.
I think Conservatives basically are moderate by personality, though tribalism in US politics gets all mixed up to produce odd results.
LikeLike
Lightning *is* pretty cool.
I think there is a fifth, and IMO the biggest, reason why people are moderate: they want to get along. Most people dislike confrontations and like to be liked, at least not hated. We are taught to avoid friction and, when friction arises, to smooth things out. It’s understandable – societies that learn to avoid and resolve conflicts are more likely to survive.
When people say they are moderate, they are putting themselves in the group with the largest plurality (usually), and numbers confer both safety and a veneer of reasonableness. Also, by avoiding a hard stance, moderates are saying to both extremes – hey I get you. It’s a form of trying to be popular. And most people love being popular.
Moderates end up being far less principled than the extremes, but most people don’t care about being principled. Most people don’t even really think much about what their principles are.
I do admire people who are brave enough to take a strong stance. At the same time, I don’t really begrudge moderates, if they are true moderates. But there are a lot of phony moderates out there. I’m willing to endure a bit more social friction for the sake of greater transparency.
LikeLike
Good points. People do, indeed, like being liked.
The lack of consistent principles in most people makes me despair a bit. I’d like to believe that people can rationally discuss things and come to some sort of sensible conclusion about the best way to run things, but instead we just seem to get people picking a side and then defending whatever makes them sound good to their side.
Glad you liked the lightning.
LikeLike
[…] Source: Evolutionist X […]
LikeLike
Moderation in all things, except moderation?
LikeLike
Heh :)
LikeLike
Your image labelled ball lightning is not ball lightning. I suspect it is an ordinary return stroke with some odd geometry or perspective. It resembles no account of ball lightning I’ve read or my experience the one time I saw it.
LikeLike
Thanks for the information!
LikeLike
I avoid calling myself a moderate for some of the same reasons I avoid calling myself agnostic, even if I am to some extent–people seem to assume it just means I’m open to being proselytized. Adding to that, a lot of people I know personally who call themselves “moderate” are basically left wing progressives who aren’t quite ready to put the old guard up against the wall… Figuratively, at least. I don’t think I know anyone who’d literally shoot anyone, but I know plenty who will lash out verbally if I so much as play devil’s advocate with non-left views… (Which has, naturally, taught me to keep my thoughts to myself, which lets me take less moderate views… I’m not sure how many of the right-wing views I really believe, and how many I just think about because I enjoy the mental image of shocking people I know… Even if I never share…)
And, yes, cool lightning pics. My 4-year-old went through a thunderstorm obsession phase this summer, though she insists that the flashes are thunder and the noise is lightning. I come from a long line of contrarians.
LikeLike
It does depend a lot on whom you’re talking to. Leftists sometimes react badly to moderates–just look at how the media treated Ken bone. With such people, it’s usually easier to just let them assume I agree with them.
LikeLike
I’ve definitely come to realize it’s best to let people assume I’m one of them. One thing that gets me still is the need I see in so many to have anyone they like agree with them, and either shove obvious differences of opinion shoved down the memory hole, or else convince themselves that they never actually liked the person. Of course, I’ve also started to realize some of my paranoia, at least regarding friends and acquaintances, really is in my head. Things I let slip that in my head would be big tells don’t register to them, or conversations that linger in my memory were just another vigorous debate with a random person to them. I think the most useful thing I learned for getting to a better place was that politics is in some way largely genetic (I think it’s more complicated than the studies I’ve seen, but nonetheless….) so I can remind myself I’m incredibly unlikely to really change minds, which allows me a certain inner peace. Or maybe I’m just excusing poor rhetorical skill. Whatever.
LikeLike
I have a pair of friends who’ve been trying to change each other’s minds on politics for years, and it still hasn’t worked. I don’t know why they still go at it, or why they haven’t written each other off as totally evil, yet here they are, still trying.
On some level, I think politics is like sports. People can say, “my team is better than your team” for years and it doesn’t really matter, so long as you don’t trash the stadium.
I’ve lost enough friends over things I’ve said that I thought were reasonable at the time that I think being cautious is reasonable, but I’ve also learned that much paranoia and stress comes from trying to be something I’m not, or to be friends with people who really don’t like me. I can be quiet for the sake of politeness when the situation calls for it, and I can seek out friends whom I actually like and get along with (not the same as “agree with on everything,” of course,) when I want to.
LikeLike
I think there’s a large element of cognitive dissonance, at least for my experiences. I’ve gotten statements of “You’re too nice to be …” or “If more … were like you, I wouldn’t mind …” (And, of course, big glaring irony of some of these people using that last statement, given how it sounds if you replaced “…” with most racial, sexual, or religious categories…)
One thought I’ve had is, to the extent that there’s evidence of a genetic basis for political leanings, there is more than a simple binary–sure, most people seem to end up as “basically conservative” or “basically liberal”, but if you dropped one of those “basically conservative” people into a liberal upbringing, would they still end up conservative, or would they go along with their family and community and become a liberal? I know two young women who strike me as very similar–they got into the same top school, were involved in the same niche activity, and they even looked similar, despite being, presumably, unrelated–but, one had come from the rural midwest, and the other had come from an inner suburb in a northeast academic city (but I hear it’s not much of a college town). The one from the rural midwest (and very conservative background) was soon sounding like a SJW stereotype, with the typical vocabulary and all, while the one from the northeast became a big Ann Coulter fan and, well, pretty much became the opposite. (I didn’t see her become overtly religious at any point, and I’ve noticed that left-wing types seem more annoyed that I’m not religious, since they could fit me nicely into one of their mental categories if I were a traditional Catholic or Southern Baptist or whatever…) Anyhow…
LikeLike
I wonder that as well. For example, thee seems to be a strong regional push to identify certain ways–I’ve known people with fairly liberal personalities who hailed from the South and were proud conservatives because they saw “liberals” as “those people from up north.” Likewise, a lot of people I know from SJW or north-east circles seem actually very conservative by personality, but think “conservatives are those people from down south who hate gays and go to church.”
Most people are just normal, fairly moderate, with a slight personality tendency one way or another or some stuff they say because everyone around them agrees with it. I look at a vast tract of suburban houses in Houston or Chicago, Maryland or LA, and think, “Are these people actually different from each other in any significant way?” Most people are just invested in the status quo (whatever that happens to be in their area) and don’t care at all for “consistent principles” or logic or whatever.
It’s been really kind of shocking watching people who were vocally in favor of peace with the Soviets in 1980 talk about how we need to go to war to stop that Mad Brute, Putin. Or the Sierra Club abandoning its anti-population growth position to come out in favor of increased immigration. (Whaaa?)
LikeLike
“…I think there is a fifth, and IMO the biggest, reason why people are moderate: they want to get along. Most people dislike confrontations and like to be liked, at least not hated…”
I believe you are exactly correct.
In my case I’m a moderate it’s everyone else that’s an extremist.
LikeLike
Here is an essay I wrote about the current political environment, I am probably a militant moderate if that can be a thing. I am outraged by both extremes and I thought everyone should know what their getting into as most people don’t even understand what the extremes really are. I hope you take away from this that some centrists are neither lazy or stupid or unaware of the facts. Although this will probably make everyone hate me I think that if everyone were honest it would help a lot.
There is a war raging right now in the United States and in fact, around the world. Extreme viewpoints on the political spectrum are claiming victims and enslaving them to their cause. I would like to bring forth a discussion for the shrinking moderately minded of us out there. At times I have had discussions with leftists and was branded as a righty and then at other times with discussions right extremest I have been accused of being a lefty. Of course I am paraphrasing, current social norms allow people to scream out things at you such as fascist, Nazi, racist, socialist, commie, and others at the top of their lungs to prevent them from listening to logic and shut you up. This is done as if they know that if you are allowed to present facts and logical assertions they will have to question their beliefs and perhaps loose their “faith” in their radical teachings and will then be lost. A lot of people reading this will attempt to discredit me without giving much thought to what I am trying to convey here or indeed reading most of this article. You will find that this behavior coincides with the actions of brainwashed cult members and indeed this is what we are facing here if we boil it down. Only, the motives for the modern political cults are in many cases more insidious, far reaching, and have a greater impact on the social construct than any normal cult. That is the point of their actions.
Before jumping into the main points, it would be beneficial to bring up some of the definitions of topics that are going to be discussed. These definitions are being quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica current on-line edition and not Wikipedia or some other source that is easily modified to fit the authors ideology. The Encyclopedia Britannica is reviewed by it’s professional staff and article contributions have been made by 110 noble laureates, and five US presidents. It is important to have a thorough understanding of these definitions in order to understand what directions society is being pulled. These are the following:
Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favor the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.
Right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. The term derives from the seating arrangement of the French revolutionary parliament (c. 1790s) in which the conservative representatives sat to the presiding officer’s right. In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property.
Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate.
Conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favor institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life.
Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.
Fascism…This is the exception to the use of the encyclopedia here and is more difficult to nail down. The problem with Fascism is that there is really no school of thought actively developing this political theory (similar ideologies are around and are called no-fascist). Most political ideologies are ideals and as such are difficult to put into practice. The difference with Fascism is that initially, the definition of Fascism was whatever Benito Mussolini said it was. Since he was already in power, whatever he did became Fascism as far as scholars were concerned. Also, scholars saw regimes that were kind of similar to what Mussolini was doing and called them Fascist also. For instance many have attached racial aspects to the theory because of the Holocaust perpetrated by Germany under Hitler during and prior to World War II eliminating not just Jews but also gays, blacks, etc… Mussolini himself thought that this was absurd and did not consider Hitler a Fascist. Unfortunately, Mussolini thought that aligning with the Axis was the way to keep his country strong and as such became linked with Naziism and subordinate to Hitler. Thereafter, people have been avoiding this type of government like the plague even thought most countries at least mildly tend towards it.
The core of Fascism is extreme Nationalism. Mussolini saw the Roman Empire being his countries heritage and wanted that kind of respect from the rest of the world for his current country. All other things are subordinate to the country getting ahead (even if it means detriment to individuals. I don’t want to sugar coat this too much). Now, a lot of what stems from that ideology is up to the leader. The first thing is that there must be a strong leader – usually a dictator. Someone has to direct this greatness and it should be someone with a great plan and the capacity to implement his plans. A democracy with elections would get in the way of this because the public may not know what is best for them not elect the right person. Fascism is neither right or left. It realizes that capitalism is a good thing because it improves the economy which in turn makes a country strong but in a socialist move, those companies must be under government review in order to make sure that they are only operating in the countries best interest. You can see that in a lot of cases, Fascism is a part of most countries. For example, The United States which champions a free market does have laws preventing super computers from being sold to Communist countries because these computers can be used to develop weapons against The United States. Although it seems that there is a similarity to the Fascist dictator and other despotic governments, typically a Fascist dictator by definition will have his countries best interest in mind while -say- a king will have only his best interests in mind and any good acts done for the people are approved in order to keep them from revolting.
On the face of it by the definitions alone, any one of these political ideologies do not sound like a bad thing if implemented correctly. The problem is that human ambition typically gets in the way and there is often opportunities for corruption and abuse of power. In addition, many of the political and monetary elite do not hold themselves to real advancement of any ideology as such and only espouse their tenets in order to obtain backers to advance their political career and fuel their megalomaniac disorders and take the rest of us along for the ride.
In fact, when many people say they support or are a member of a political party or are right or left, they are unaware of the true goals of the individuals and institutions they are supporting.
People tend to forget history over the course of a generation and tend to think that whatever happening now is the norm. I will use this as a theme in other essays as well. Throughout almost all of human history after surplus possessions were invented, there have been people who have wanted those possessions earned by others for themselves. For instance, a king would declare himself ruler of a land by having a military force on his side in order to have the population under his control pay taxes so they would not be harassed by said military. This was much like a mafia racket. The government did not do much for the general population and force them into a kind of slavery. For most of human history after the tribal era, there have been a very small number of elite and a huge number of the suffering supporting them. The industrial revolution turned this on it’s head. Now, in order to stay relevant, new technologies must be created and produced giving rise to the need for skilled laborers who would demand higher wages and creating the middle class. The elite have been trying to get back their control ever since.
Focusing on The United States, we can see this being played out.
Extreme right wing agendas tend to promote unfettered capitalism as being the ideal for society. Everyone must look out for themselves and be opportunistic in order to get ahead. “That’s the American way!” they will usually say in order to obtain public support for their actions. Usually the staunchest proponents of this agenda are billionaires and heads of large corporations who use their clout and money to buy political capitol in the form of huge campaign contributions and kickbacks. Their aim is to become even more rich and powerful at any cost, even to the point of engineering recessions in order to cause the little guy to go out of business so they can be snatched up at bargain basement prices and get the government to give them bailout money because they are “too big to fail”. They usually use religion or nostalgia in order to manipulate public support for them. Some of these entities are out in the open however some are very secretive such as the backers of the Federal Reserve which is not a branch of government but a financial consortium who strong armed the US government to allow them to print all the US money, loan it to the government and forces those loans of money it invents to be paid back in interest. The Fed is responsible for controlling inflation which erodes the value of your savings when money is printed by them effectively making them relatively richer with every passing day. These are people who do not care if you can live in a house or even can buy food. They generate money by putting the average person into debt and having you pay it back in interest earning more money than if you paid for it in cash. They have divorced themselves from the government so your complaints will fall on the government instead of them.
Previously, in monarchies where the government and the rich people were one and the same, amnesty was often given if the debt level from taxes ran too high to keep the people from rising up against the monarchy. However now, the public can complain and try to revolt on the government as much as they like and it mostly will not affect the rich. They would rather you died of starvation than give up their right to taking your money. This can and does happen and the laws are written in their favor. The public is encourage to spend, buy, and finance that lifestyle by going into debt. The environment, the welfare of the country, and human lives are all but obstacles in the way of profit and wage disparity.
On the other side, there are people who would rather gain power through social manipulation rather than controlling the money supply. Ultimately, if you can control the population through brainwashing this is can be more effective and more satisfying to some megalomaniacs than just controlling the population through financial means. Socialism is the perfect hotbed for this type of manipulation as the ruling class convinces everyone to work and “share” while siphoning off the public assets for their own personal gain. This can be seen most easily in a country like the old Soviet Union. There was a revolution that the people actually wanted to cause the Soviet Union to come into existence tricking the population into their own slavery. But, if the right already is able to manipulate what the left consider “dumb” people – religious people, old people, rural people… by pulling on their heart strings and twisting religion and nostalgia, how can the left control the so called “smart” people – city dwellers, college kids etc…?
As it turns out, the people who think they are less susceptible to brainwashing are actually less resistant to it because it is unexpected. When someone is young and impressionable, eager to soak up new information that’s when they are at their most vulnerable. That is when we send our children to college. Preferably away from home where they are not subject to their parents point of view and values. Most universities are state run schools (a socialist thing to do in the first place) and staffed by employees with titles that are required to meat certain criteria and in many circumstances ideals, in order to be employed. These teachers and professors espouse a liberal agenda to the children that look up to them as being the intelligent people they want to be and see the liberal point of view as the norm. Not only are they influenced by the staff, the new student is put into contact with other students, peers, of which have been exposed to this ideology for two to four years already.
Many countries have a mandatory military term in order to brainwash their young people. However, the US is never going to go for that. Instead, there is a big push to send everyone to college. Employers are now requiring college degrees for jobs that don’t even require any secondary schooling education. They are just requiring it. If they are not explicitly stating that fact, it is evident in their hiring practices.
The change to society through this type of manipulation is a slow and insidious progression. First the university system encourages free thinking, then distrust of older wisdom. Once enough people are sent into the world and convert enough of the general population, the thinking becomes more radical, everyone is equal and not responsible for their actions because the social construct causes them to be a certain way, gay rights to gay marrage to bisexualism to transgenderisim to (believe it or not!) the new thinking that pedophiles are as natural and normal and deserving of rights as the rest of us. Really, why someone would have to explain to someone else why this is wrong is beyond me. Sex with minors is one of the major reasons authorities use to shut down a cult and is one of the hallmarks of a brainwashing cult. This is the progression so far and I am afraid of where it will go next.
As it turns out, both sides are not as forward thinking as they think they are.
For instance, the ultra right which in general despises gays and champions profit above all else at any cost are shooting themselves in the foot. As one example goes, companies will make things as cheap as possible using a lot of plastic, then they will dispose of those hazardous materials in the cheapest way possible and try to reverse laws that prevent open dumping. So, those companies hire Chinese companies to dispose of their waste. Those Chinese companies promptly dump that waste into the ocean. Now, plastic in the environment is so prevalent, that minute pieces of plastic are present even in bottled water releasing their hormone mimicking chemicals aiding in the rise of homosexual tendencies. This is not even mentioning other chemicals in our food supply such as hormones given to livestock to birth control in our water supply and on and on.
The left on the other hand, the left is sowing its own seeds of western societies destruction. In order to sell the idea of everyone being equal the left is normalizing what would be normally bad behavior in previous eras. This means being accepting of everyone. That sounds great but that theory is blind to the fact that there are truly bad people and people that want to hurt you. It also apparently means that we should be welcoming to all immigrants. It means that the haves should support the have nots. In practice this also means supporting the “don’t want to do anything” people. To prevent this, laws must be enacted to force those people into contributing or brainwashing them or – making them go away – so the rest of the population doesn’t get any ideas. This is what the Soviet Union had to face and it is a slippery slope that gets worse and worse. Please look up the facts of living in the Soviet Union or better yet first hand accounts. Go talk to an older Russian immigrant and find out why they risked it all to come to America.
Then there is the problem of “the we will take your money to live off while planning on killing you” people. Let me explain. In the 7th century, a religion, ideology, and system of government was formed in the middle east by Muhammad. This religion is a religion of peace. As long as everyone on earth is a Muslim and practices the same way, there will be peace. Until then, there will be wars while they are trying to exterminate the “infidels” and subjugate the world. If you look a real history – I can not say this enough, do not just listen to what Muslims and the mainstream media tell you, look for yourself – since it’s founding, Islam has been trying to take over the world. They will not integrate into society. That has been proven by how they treat the Jews. If you have seen Independence Day, they have the same attitude as the aliens.
President Thomas Whitmore: What do you want us to do?
Captured Alien: Die. Die.
There is no reasoning with that.
Christianity spread mostly through missionaries spreading their good word. Islam spread through war. Most areas they conquered had no idea that this was coming and were unprepared. Previously, you knew there was tension as the other country wanted your land or had a quarrel with you so you got ready. The Muslims showed up “just because” you weren’t one of them. Then you either converted, were killed, or paid a tax so exorbitant that you knew you were subordinate to them. They attacked the city of Constantinople, the city between them and Europe, was attacked for nearly 800 years. So, don’t think they are just going to forget about things. After the Renaissance, the west grew stronger militarily and after World War I It was impossible for them to be military aggressors, then terrorism was what they could do to attack the west. Now that Islam sees that we are becoming a week morally bankrupt people that just squabble amongst ourselves, they see this as an opportunity to invade our countries and take over. And we let them in order to advance the liberal agenda. Unfortunately, for the majority of liberal ideals, When the Islamists reach a majority in the congress, they will pass Sharia Law. Then feminism will go away and women will loose the vote, their right to drive, become slaves to their husbands etc… Gays will be beheaded by swords etc. etc. etc. I know you do not believe me because most extreme left wing minded people are smug and believe they already know everything about a situation without looking into it. But, I implore you to learn about Islam. The more you know about them the more you will know what their plan is. The Koran tells them to hate other people and to lie about it. I am not hiding anything please find out for yourself before it’s too late. Please see what Islam has done to other countries. Speak with Iranian woman who had to flee Iran after the 1979 Muslim revolution. If you think this can not happen in western countries please look up Muslims in Sweden. This is our path if the leftist agenda succeeds. Although they want millions of poor people working to provide government officials a life of luxury, the Muslim invasion will not allow this to become a reality. Branding people Islamaphobes makes as much sense as chastising people for being burglarphobes or calling women rapestphobes. You are allowed to not like people out to hurt you. Although I can see that on the horizon.
I am a believer that humans do have instincts. We do not like to admit it because we would like to believe our brain rules all of our actions. I am also a believer in evolution. Human traits are with us for reasons that have come up in our past. We were tribal. We still are tribal. We stuck to our own. Tribes outside did not have a connection to us so we were distrusting – predigest. This was necessary in our development as we shared the world with other human species. Other species that competed with us for resources. We eventually “out-competed” them in some form or other. But our desire to overcome those not like up persisted in our genetic makeup. The spread of religion gave us a reason to trust our neighbors, to give us a link that would otherwise not be there, a reason to not declare war on another family group not related to ourselves. Of course when we then encountered other religions, that link was no longer there and we declared war. Humans found other ways to band together in order to advance our civilization. The thought of being a member of a city and later a nation, of a race, help us to hold back the urge to make war on our neighbor. However sometimes, those feelings do us justice. We have feelings of intolerance for those not like us, for those that may cause ourselves or our family harm. Wanting to harm a pedophile is probably much more natural than being one if you think through it. We have been guiding our own evolution through our social constructs. People have grown taller, bustier, etc… because of sexual preference. Most races have grown apart because of differences in what beauty is around the world. Similarly, traits have gone out of or diminished in our gene pool because of what we think is unattractive, unsavory, and downright dangerous. Those that act aggressively or shun homosexuals or pedophiles etc… have in the past had their genes more successful. Therefore those traits are passed on to our offspring.
Believe it or not, society has had a way of coping with all this before the “woke” revolution. People attracted to having sex with toddlers kept quiet about their desires and didn’t do anything or they would probably be killed. That is how society handled this situation and it worked pretty much for a long time. This is how society has kept the “undesirables” to a minimum. There will always be some people with those tendencies but past society tries to keep it to a minimum.
Let me explain. I wear glasses. I didn’t develop this from reading or becoming old, I was born this way. Thousands of years ago, I would have died due to my handicap. I am fortunate that mankind has invented glasses. But, me wearing glasses isn’t hurting anyone so this is acceptable by society. People with bad eyesight were a minority but, now that it is no longer a handicap, and as it turns out are better lovers,,,,,,,, ; ) 61 percent of the US population now wears glasses at some point, up from 57 percent just in 2001. A four percent increase in just one generation. So, unless you are pro child molester and want to see more of them in the future, it’s not wise to be a proponent of their acceptance in society.
There are a lot of problems with our society. It is our job to become educated and find out what is really going on, who is trying to control things and manipulate us. Also we need to be aware of the consequences of our actions. In the end, society is really what the majority finds acceptable. That is always changing. We need to be mindful on how we are directing our future or someone else will. Decide what kind of society you really want to live in and make it a reality. I find that listening to all sides and trying to make a world that most can live in is the best way. Radical and violent forcing of your own ill conceived agenda is probably a bad thing.
Joel Schlecht
Aug 19 2018
LikeLike