...we need more moderate's in both our political and religious institutions... .

[Deleted]

In 1980, Bolton co-founded the New Zealand branch of the Church of Odin, a pro-Nazi organisation for "whites of non-Jewish descent". — Fooloso4

Oh, well that's just great.

First of all, many thanks to everyone for your interesting contributions.

I was just thinking that in the old days people used to fight over water, food or women. Later they fought over religion and now it seems we're fighting over "ideology". So, can we really call this "progress" or are we just fooling ourselves?

And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong?

Otherwise put, what is more important, permanence or change?

Obviously, permanence comes first as all change, even in psychological terms, can only take place against the background of permanence. In fact, we wouldn't even perceive change except with reference to some form of permanence.

So, we may say that the "Right", the camp of permanence, might be afraid of and therefore resistant to the idea of change which is perhaps a natural instinct within us.

But what about the "Left", the camp of change? What can we say about it? I doubt that we can say it is "afraid of permanence" or that it "hates permanence". It may hate the status quo, which is why it wants change, but once the change is in place I'm sure the left wants it to be permanent.

It follows that the element of permanence, of conservatism, is dominant in both camps and this seems to suggest that permanence or conservatism comes first as a fundamental predisposition of all human beings and of life in general.

In any case, my guess would be that, as @3017amen said, we need more moderates in our society. But that seems to be hard to achieve when conflicting ideologies are allowed to take over.

And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong? — Apollodorus

Such bivalence is far too simplistic. If the Republicans want to make America great again they are advocating for change. If the Democrats want to protect abortion rights and environmental regulation then they are advocating for preservation.

Otherwise put, what is more important, permanence or change? — Apollodorus

Permanence is slow change. Nothing is unchanging.

... but once the change is in place I'm sure the left wants it to be permanent. — Apollodorus

I don't think this is correct. Politics, left and right, is social experiment. If a favored policy reveals its shortcomings then the intelligent thing to do is address it and make changes. The American Founders put in place the ability to amend the Constitution.

It follows that the element of permanence, of conservatism, is dominant in both of them and this seems to suggest that permanence or conservatism comes first as a fundamental predisposition of all human beings and of life in general — Apollodorus

It does not then follow that self-identified "conservatives" seek to conserve all human beings an life in general. What they seek to conserve is their own orthodoxies. As a group they cannot agree on what those are.

What they seek to conserve is their own orthodoxies. As a group they cannot agree on what those are. — Fooloso4

But the same applies to the opposite camp, does it not? Marxists have changed little since Marx and there are many strands of "leftism".

But the same applies to the opposite camp, does it not? Marxists have changed little since Marx and there are many strands of "leftism". — Apollodorus

Are you saying that the Left are conservatives because they too seek to conserve their own orthodoxies? But since conservative orthodoxies can change with the wind, deficit spending for example, that would mean they are also leftists.

This was meant tongue in cheek, but positions do sometimes reverse, as in the case of attitudes toward free speech.

[Deleted]

You're definitely right about free speech, it's fast becoming a rare commodity - as well-argued by Piers Morgan in his book "Wake Up". The minute you say something deemed in any way "wrong" by any person or group you get cancelled out of existence. Very worrying and frightening development. Again, can we call this "progress"? Hardly.

Well, the book has absolutely nothing about Odin or anything of the kind, from what I can see at least. And no, I'm not into "Odinism", are you?

[Deleted]

You're definitely right about free speech, it's fast becoming a rare commodity — Apollodorus

This is a very old and very common refrain. That is not to say it is not a problem, but it is not one that is best addressed by claiming the sky is falling. Free speech has also been tenuous. We are simply struggling to find its boundaries once again in a changing world.

Free speech has also been tenuous. We are simply struggling to find its boundaries once again in a changing world. — Fooloso4

I agree. The world is indeed changing very fast and the boundaries of free speech appear to be getting narrower by the day - or by the minute in some cases.

But what about the "Left", the camp of change? What can we say about it? I doubt that we can say it is "afraid of permanence" or that it "hates permanence". It may hate the status quo, which is why it wants change, but once the change is in place I'm sure the left wants it to be permanent.

It follows that the element of permanence, of conservatism, is dominant in both camps and this seems to suggest that permanence or conservatism comes first as a fundamental predisposition of all human beings and of life in general. — Apollodorus

Nonsense. Some people are more open to new experiences and change than others. Don't we all experience this ourselves? I have a brother who's two years my senior and who I grew up with. He was always resistant to new experiences and change, and is very much conservative. I'm the opposite.

what is more important, permanence or change? — Apollodorus

Obviously, they're both important.

Being "more open to change" is one thing. Insisting on change at all costs and no matter what is quite another thing.

Not only that, but those who insist on change often are the first to resist change when it goes against their own personal agendas.

Insisting on change at all costs and no matter what is quite another thing. — Apollodorus

Right, that's what being liberal is all about. Don't let anyone ever let you think otherwise!

Finland is just the place for tad greyish...most of the year, early spring, fall, most of the winter months etc.

First of all, many thanks to everyone for your interesting contributions. — Apollodorus

First if all, we need a flat out rejection of nazi bullshit from you.

He is involved in several nationalist and fascist political groups in New Zealand.

In 1980, Bolton co-founded the New Zealand branch of the Church of Odin, a pro-Nazi organisation for "whites of non-Jewish descent".

He founded the national-socialist Order of the Left Hand Path (OLHP).It was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis"

Bolton created and edited the Black Order newsletter, The Flaming Sword, and its successor, The Nexus, a satanic-Nazi journal — Fooloso4

What is this?

I have a brother who's two years my senior and who I grew up with. He was always resistant to new experiences and change, and is very much conservative. I'm the opposite. — praxis

Perhaps older siblings tend to be more resistant to change. This would tend to support what I was saying.

In any case, the book I'm reading has absolutely nothing in it about "Nazism", "Odinism" or "anti-semitism". What the author does in his spare time is his business. Maybe he acquired new interests after writing the book. I don't think that's a reason to ban it or try to suppress philosophical debate on a discussion forum. If anything, any such attempts can only serve to confirm the point he's making, i.e. that spurious "scientific" analysis is being used to suppress political opposition.

Finland is just the place for tad greyish...most of the year, early spring, fall, most of the winter months etc. — ssu

I like grey up to a point. A little green and blue is nice, though

Are you Bolton? — frank

No, are you?

No, are you? — Apollodorus

Do you reject his bullshit or not?

I have a brother who's two years my senior and who I grew up with. He was always resistant to new experiences and change, and is very much conservative. I'm the opposite.
— praxis

Perhaps older siblings tend to be more resistant to change. This would tend to support what I was saying. — Apollodorus

What you were saying is nonsensical but even if it were not I have another brother who is 10 years my senior and is very much progressive liberal, and at least as open to new experience and change as I am.

In any case, the book I'm reading has absolutely nothing in it about "Nazism", "Odinism" or "anti-semitism". What the author does in his spare time is his business. Maybe he acquired new interests after writing the book. I don't think that's a reason to ban it or try to suppress philosophical debate on a discussion forum. If anything, any such attempts can only serve to confirm the point he's making, i.e. that spurious "scientific" analysis is being used to suppress political opposition. — Apollodorus

Honestly, I thought the book was comedy until I looked it up, which confirmed that it's comedy.

It's really simple to reject Nazism. Just do it!

I fail to see your logic. Just because you're a Marxist that doesn't make the rest of us "Nazis", "Odinists" and "anti-semites"

The book has nothing of that sort in it at all. IMO, you're talking conspiracy theory there, my friend.

Have you rejected Marxist terrorism and genocide yet? If not, why not???

Not only that, but I'm not even discussing the book, I just said I was reading it. Maybe you need some reading glasses or something?

Just because you're a Marxist that doesn't make the rest of us "Nazis", "Odinists" and "anti-semites" — Apollodorus

So you're definitely not an anti-semite and you whole heatedly reject Nazism in all its forms.

I knew it!

And what makes us so defensive when discussing opposite views? Why do we sometimes simultaneously reserve the right to be different while also expecting others to be like us? — Apollodorus

Belonging to a certain political orientation is tied with one thinks is correct or proper or on the right track so far as society and the world should go. Inevitably deep issues related to ethics, behavior and society are involved which are pretty important in terms of scope.

A certain amount of identity is tied into the beliefs we may have associated with politics, thus if someone holds an opposite view on an issue of importance, it can be taken as a kind of insult to the types of things you may hold dear. We also need to - for our sake - simplify the world to some extent, if we did not, there would be too much information to make sense of.

The thing is, when you speak in general terms to people of very different political views, we tend to find lots of areas of agreement: we want good education, good healthcare, more fair taxes, etc. When it gets down to how to get there, issues become very thorny.

There's a lot of stuff to go over in the "left" vs. "right" debate. In the US this divide as is presented in the mainstream is pretty narrow, I think. Europe is better in this specific regard, but barely.

Not only that, but I'm not even discussing the book, I just said I was reading it. Maybe you need some reading glasses or something? — Apollodorus

You bring a book to our attention and the author turns out to be a Nazi schizo. We're entitled to hear you say you're not a freaking nazi sympathizer, and you're not, so great!

The book has nothing of that sort in it at all. Plus, it's been endorsed by psychology professors like Kevin MacDonald — Apollodorus

Oh boy, Apollodorus...

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[4]

Of course Wikipedia might be part of the character assassination, but hmm...

I think part of the problem is that people tend to invest a lot of emotional energy into things they often don't really know or understand.

By definition, politics is about power and politicians will do anything to acquire as much power for themselves as possible, including manipulating the public.

So, it looks like modern society is going in the wrong direction and we need to return to more civility and respect for each other.

And take a more philosophical approach to things instead of jumping headlong into political activism.