Friday, June 1, 2012

Balance and Moderation

You've heard it all your life, "moderation in all things." First said in so many words by Aristotle, I believe.  Like a lot of clichés, it got to be a cliché by being useful and accurate.  It applies to just about everything, really.  If you eat too little, you starve, if you eat too much, you get fat. If you don't work enough, you can't make a living, if you work too much, you stress out and die. It applies to every situation where there are extremes on either side — actual extremes, not the "extremes" politicians like to warn us about, which usually turn out to be common-sense positions.

And speaking of politics, and philosophical world-view in general, there are two extreme ways of looking at the world. One extreme is the clannish view, which states that you and your family and your clan, or extended family, are of supreme importance and significance, and everybody and everything else in the world is repugnant and less than human and of no significance whatsoever.  This is the sort of narrow tribalism that you find throughout primitive humanity, and it works.  Indeed it's a necessary phase to go through.  People who didn't think that way were defeated and destroyed by those who did. The other extreme on that spectrum is the concept that everything is equal, so there's nothing special about you, or your family, or your ethnic group, or anything else, really.  That doesn't work. Ever. For one thing, it knocks hell out of your self-image and removes any incentive to do anything at all to support or protect yourself or anybody else.

So, when you're growing out of clannishness, you have to be careful not to go to the other extreme, and stop valuing yourself and your group. That, of course, is what we're doing now, and it really isn't even that simple. When you've decided that you, your family, and your ethic group are no better than anybody  else, a human perverseness can't stand a vacuum in the hierarchy, and you start thinking that the non-you is actually better.  That's kind of what happened to the princesses in a recent post. So the moderate, sensible, reasonable position is sort of an enlightened modification of the original clannish proposition. You come to understand that other people and groups have their value, but you don't forget that yours does too, and that you and your group are naturally the most important to you. That's when you are able to find common ground with others and other groups and cooperate, or even unite, with them and become stronger and greater as a result. When we learned to think that way, we were able to form large tribes that became nations, and to have richer, more profound cultures as a result, without losing our own uniqueness. You haven't lost your you-ness, you've just enlarged it.

Where was I going with this?  Oh, yeah. Right now everybody is confused, and it's thought that this whole notion of pride in self and group is pathological somehow, for Whites, at least, and that we should no longer think of ourselves and our own people first, but, on the contrary, think of everybody else first. This is an overextension of the enlightened realization that other human beings are people, too. Yeah, they're all people, but they're not all alike, and there are going to be irreconcilable differences, unless, of course, you decide that they're better than you are and that you should therefore throw out all your values in favor of theirs.  This is erroneously called "multiculturalism," and it's killing our civilization.

Steve Sailer looks at this phenomenon as a left-right thing, which it is, considering it as a system of loyalties, and looks for the proper balance HERE.

No comments:

Post a Comment