Sunday, October 10, 2010


and themselves "moderates." It is as if some political position, by virtue of its being in the middle (however "middle" is defined) is automatically true. You know how intolerably stupid someone on the radical Left would sound if he were to say "my opinion is further to the Left than anyone's! Therefor it must be true!" However, the "moderates" think that just by being in the middle somewhere one is automatically holding the truest position--or at the very least, a respectable position. Why is this? When did the truth commit itself to moderation? Does it never occur to these bourgeois that looked at from their perspective, the truth might turn out to be radical? Did it consult human proclivities before coming into being?

Consider as well the exalted Henry Kissinger. Was he not always portrayed as a master of calm and reasoned moderation? Yet he was a genocidal maniac.

"Right," "Left," and "Middle" are vague though useful terms which categorize various ideas and attitudes with relationship to each other. But none of these terms has by definition any inherent relationship to the truth. They cannot measure the truth. It is the truth that measures them.


jerwolf 27 said...

Thick as a Brick(Jethro Tull 1972) "Some of us are geared to tha average rather than the extraordinary"

Queen of the Universe said...

it is interesting to see here in the US the explosion of the "Tea Party" on the right and how RIDICULOUS the things they say are but the right continues to label liberals as extremists. makes me laugh until i become REALLY scared about what will happen here Nov 2. considering moving out of country, seriously.