Moderation: The Lost Art

Updated: 16.1.23.

Why Moderation Is So Important

No, this isn't about how I moderate the empty comments sections on this blog. It's about the moderation nobody seems to give a shit about anymore. (And judging from the huge popularity of this blog, that won't change any time soon.)

Moderation is one of the most important approaches to life, applicable both to individuals and societies, i.e. equally on a micro and macro level. It can be a sign of intelligence, especially a peculiar type of it that few seem to possess or even have any interest in developing: common sense. It also falls under pragmatism, i.e. moderation often goes counter to idealism, especially unhinged idealism - which is the foundation of all political extremism. If schools taught a subject called Moderation, we'd all be a lot better off. (Right after they introduce Common Sense and Logic. Hammer those tiny kiddie brains with some sense, early on, instead of making them learn so much (comparatively) useless shit.) Of course, that's assuming that extremists aren't hired to teach this subject to the kiddies...

I've always insisted on moderation, in almost all things. In theory at least. Applying it in practice is always more difficult, of course. Ask any junkie, nymphomaniac, fat slob, adrenaline junkie, kleptomaniac or alcoholic how easy it is to be moderate. Temptations toward extreme behaviour are a permanent fixture. Nature has wired us to be immoderate - yet it "expects" moderation from us to increase survival chances. It's like a curse that way, like nature's sadistic little trick. (One of many.) Like an animal impulse. The difference is that we are not animals (or at least not entirely, and not all of us), and are allegedly above them, hence should be able to control our impulses, which critters can't.

Talk to any doctor and there is a good chance they use the words "in moderation". Use too little of a medicine, and it won't have an effect. Use too much, and you could experience side-effects. Use the right amount and it should work.

A primitive tribe. If they catch too little, they starve. If they keep catching too much, they risk depleting their environment, risk upsetting the balance, hence starving in the long run. Moderation keeps them alive, both in the long and short run.

A dumb Hollywood actor. If he wildly overacts he becomes a meme, like Nicholas Cage. If he underacts, he bores everyone. Strike the right balance and you'll avoid being spoofed and won't bore your audiences as much.

If a society produces too few children, it will eventually perish. If it makes too many, this will result in poverty, starvation - which inevitably leads to social upheaval and political instability - hence the quality of life will suffer greatly. Zero children isn't the answer, neither is an average of 5.

Americans. Very many can be classified as either fitness fanatics who burden their bodies with too much exercise and suffering, or fat slobs who shop around Walle-Mart in huge pig-carts. Moderation is key. The point isn't to run a marathon every day, nor is it to completely let yourself go like a lazy, dumb c**t.

Extremes, it's all about avoiding them. Extremes are like chocolate, they grab your attention and try to lure you to your eventual doom. The less intelligent you are and the more of a pushover you are, the likelier you are to be trapped by one extreme or the other. Which is why extremes ensnare far more idiots than non-idiots, why they trap a lot of young people, and also why so many mentally unstable people are caught up in extremes.

Extremes can be very enticing, especially to young people who know the least about the importance of moderation. Teens and 20somethings are basically inexperienced, gullible, knowitall fools, similarly to how little children are idiots, and we should all be able to agree that idiots possess far less self-control than non-idiots. They also tend to not plan as much, tend to not asses situations properly. Youngins jump to conclusions; they are like impulsive hormonal animals. An idiot (or a young person: same thing) is more likely to not grasp concepts such as "less is more" because to a young idiot more is always merrier: "Yo, that drug was awesome! I gotta take some more, dude, like right now!" The younger you are, the closer you are to an animal, as a general rule. The dumber you are the closer you are to an animal: an even more concrete rule. An undeniable fact, actually.

Alcoholics and drug-addicts are very obvious examples of feeble-minded idiots who lack self-control, who care little about moderation, who rush into extreme behaviour without any sense of guilt, wise caution or planning. Just by trying out drugs, even milder ones, you are basically signaling to your surroundings that you are willing to take a big (yet needless) risk of getting sucked into an addiction, and for no apparent purpose - unless instant gratification or brainless curiosity can be classified as valid purposes for doing anything of a high-risk nature. Not to mention other motives, even more idiotic, such as peer pressure or trying to wile away boredom. Morons go into drug-use hence inevitably become even more moronic; hardly what we could call constructive behaviour. Addictions by definition imply living in the extreme, in the "fast lane", and are practiced almost exclusively by cretins and/or the gullible and/or the optimistic and/or the arrogant and/or the suicidal. (High optimism and arrogance are anyway usually mere outgrowths of low intelligence.) Short-term fun overrides any cautionary concerns. To idiots at least.

Even with sex neither extreme is particularly good. A frigid librarian type woman avoids sex for many years, so her vagina doesn't get any exercise. When she finally has sex, she hates it, because the vadge is completely untrained. It's out of shape! It may have even become untrainable, if she let it rot for too long, such as decades. (I'm not making this up; genitals need exercise just as the rest of the body does.) On the other hand, women who have dozens of sexual partners annually - i.e. filthy dumb skanks - take on risks bigger than their tiny (young) brains could possibly know:

a) danger of VDs,

b) danger of being rejected by their family and friends (unless they too act like whores and pimps),

c) danger of acquiring a reputation that will disallow you to find a quality male to pair up with once you decide that you'd had enough screwing around, once you're 34 and no longer considered cute,

d) danger of being killed or hurt by a psychopath (when it comes to random female buggery, "the more the merrier" is replaced by "the more the likelier you are to come across a psycho-killer or a violent pervert"),

e) danger of having a mental-case fall in love you, become a stalker, and creating hell for you while you try to screw around with other guys.

Glorification of prostitutes in popular culture, nearly always by left-wingers (who else), is a complete joke. There is nothing glorious, intelligent, cute, adorable, admirable, pity-worthy or romantic about prostitutes: they are mentally ill, very dysfunctional women, by-and-large. Nor are all of them forced into that "business" as many gullibtards seem to believe. For many lazy skanks prostitution is a convenient way to earn lots of money quickly.

Women that screw around are lazy idiots even more than they are insecure nymphomaniacs. Most of them are largely unaware of all these dangers, or blissfully choose to ignore them. This is why slutty whores are regarded with great suspicion as opposed to men that screw around, because guys of that sort take on far less risks. Besides, guys act in accordance with their primary instincts (to impregnate as many women as they can, to spread their own seed). The primary instinct for a woman is unlike that of a man: it is to settle with one partner, not to screw around, because she will have kids to take care for. This is what neo-feminists and virtue-signaling liberal cucks don't seem to understand, i.e. it explains why they bitch about sluts being treated differently from "studs".

"How come when a man screws around he is a hero, but when a woman does it she's the worst?!"

We hear this nonsense very often. Only a clueless moron (or a young person - same thing) can pose this very dumb question i.e. make this complaint. Trust feminists and cucks to be so stupid as to not recognize even the most plainly obvious gender differences...

Here's a much sillier example, but even an idiot should be able to understand it.

If you love cats but don't have any you might be miserable. So get 2-3. Get 50 and you'll be miserable. A different kind of miserable. (The cats will be miserable too. They aren't very social and prefer not to be huddled like cattle.) Go for the moderate option and you should be OK.

Speaking of animals, there are two extremist attitudes. There are psychopaths who have no empathy for animals, and gladly kill or even torture them for fun. Their counterparts are the Disney-bubble idiots who become vegetarian, or even vegan, just to "save animal lives". The first extreme has a totally unacceptable, inhumane attitude toward animals, treating them as toys and objects (for which they deserve to be sterilized and/or executed - the psychos, I mean), whereas the other extreme glorifies animals way too much, idealizes them to the point of completely ignoring the most obvious realities of this harsh universe. The moderate approach makes the most sense: love animals and treat them kindly whenever you can, but also feel free to sustain yourself on their flesh, because we didn't invent the rules - we merely live by them. Nature punishes naivety and excessive softness. Which is why Europeans might be eventually facing extinction, due to their Disney-bubble compassion, their naivety about a host of issues, including immigrants. Nobody that soft can survive in the long run; nature punishes such naivety with extreme force.

If you're into jogging, run a kilometer. That should be about right, if you're in good health. 10 meters won't get you any results, whereas 10 km a day will damage you far more than help you. 100 km a day, and you could be dead within days or weeks. Stay in bed without getting up, for weeks or months, and your health will deteriorate rapidly.

Extremes. It's all about avoiding them, finding the ideal way which is very rarely one extreme or the other.

Music. Listen to it at a very low volume and it's shit. Listen to it at maximum volume and you'll go deaf pretty quick. So you go for a medium volume, for something reasonable that is neither boring nor ear-threatening - yet very enjoyable. (Unless you play Bon Jovi, but in that case you deserve to be bored or deaf.)

Speaking of music, don't be a wise-ass, pointing out in the comments section that I enjoy "extreme" music yet "hypocritically" preach moderation. That would be so dumb. (Fat chance! There are no comments at all in most of the posts.)

Moderation. So underestimated, so very ignored, even unknown as an option by some people: usually by lunatics, fanatics, and idiots. Unfortunately, these demographics nearly always make up the majority of any given population. So yes, the world is in trouble. (It always was.)

The least obvious example though (to extremists at least), but perhaps the most important, at least globally speaking, is politics.

Both the Far Left and the Far Right are extremist approaches to governing, structuring society, and economy. There is no moderation whatsoever in either; no common sense and no room for compromise. They are the antithesis to moderation. Hence neither work. Or they might work a little bit in the short-run, usually due to lucky circumstances, but in the long-run they always lead to disastrous results, without exception.

One extreme appeals to hateful, violent idiots, while the other appeals to hateful, violent idiots who like to virtue-signal; so the difference is minimal, virtue-signaling being literally the only "major" difference between the Far Left and Far Right. In other words, the Far Left veils its ideology in good intentions, masking its real nature, whereas the Far Right is more obvious and honest about its evil intentions. (This is why the Far Left is overall more dangerous because it only seems to threaten a small minority: the stinking rich, when in fact it is an enemy of everybody except the tiny psychopath elite that ends up ruling society.)

Of course, the problem is that most commies and Nazis don't consider themselves Far Anything. In other words, a loon doesn't know he's a loon. Or he might know but simply doesn't give a damn.

Germany.

A great example of a nation whose people appear to be naturally drawn towards extremes, unable to embrace moderation.

Less than 100 years ago (i.e. not very long ago) the entire nation was in the midst of racist, genocidal, homicidal, anti-social, barbaric fervour. Anyone who tells you that "most German citizens didn't support Hitler" is either a liar or a moron. (I believe most supported him in 1943, let alone in the 30s.) Less than 50 years after Nazi Germany was defeated, the country had miraculously and unexpectedly swung itself into the other extreme: cultural Marxism. A reversal that took only a few decades! The great, unfathomable irony is that a hard-working nation of "intelligent" people would so eagerly rush towards socialism (National Socialism and then Marx's Socialism) never fails to fascinate me: it acts almost as proof that humanity is doomed. Hard work and socialism are diametrically opposed concepts (except for forced labour in gulags), which is why I am fascinated that Germans would keep embracing it over and over. Won't they ever learn?

Though this does have a lot to do with mentality, not so much intelligence: Germans, much like the Japanese ("coincidentally" enough their biggest WW2 allies), have "termite mound mentality". Germans tend to be followers of trends, i.e. herd-orientated; far less individualistic than for example the British and especially the French, who are less likely to fanatically and naively trust authority, regardless of how awful or not-so-awful it may be. the French pride themselves on their individualism, and that is more a positive than a negative thing. Germans and the Japanese, on the other hand, are less likely to resist going with the flow, regardless whether the flow is good or bad.

Just as Germans were immersed in racist fervour only a little more than 70 years ago, now they are drenched in anti-racist fervour!

Yet, fervour is fervour, it's never acceptable. Germans now preach "tolerance" - yet their most left-wing politicians (Greens) behave like arrogant white supremacists while visiting nations that don't tolerate LGBT philosophy! (Example: the 2022 Qatar World Cup.) Which goes to show that whether you bully a nation by invading it or by admonishing it for not being "tolerant" (i.e. liberal), you are bullying it, either way. Germany has not changed significantly: they are still inflexible on political and social issues, treating all anti-LGBT nations/societies as immoral and backward.

Where is the tolerance?

It's only theoretical, with left-wing "democracies" such as the one in Germany (and Sweden, Norway, Britain...)

Germans simply don't understand moderation, they defecate on it. Despite their high intelligence and unquestionable competence on an individual level, in large groups they behave not much better than cattle. Why this is so is probably a cultural thing, and anthropologists may find explanations for it. But that's not what I want to discuss here.

Speaking of cattle.

Take a ship, for example, in a storm, with only cattle on board. As one big wave hits them from the left, they will rush toward the right side, risking to capsize the boat. When a wave attacks from the right (I love the cheesy symbolism... left, right...), they rush to the left, again risking capsizing the ship with their combined weight. If cattle had any sense, they would distribute themselves wisely, so as to avoid turning the ship over, increasing the odds of their survival in hostile conditions. Instead, they only make things even worse.

But Germans don't seem to have enough sense to realize that they behave like mindless herds who obediently follow the "leader" and never/rarely questions state propaganda. By behaving this way they invariably push the ship (their country) to ruin, one way or another, one type of ruin or another. (And because they are so key to European stability, their own ruin always rubs off on their neighbours and further even.) They don't seem to be inquisitive, critical or skeptical enough to question authority. Unlike the French: they may take this rebellious attitude a bit far on occasion, but it's better to have too much skepticism than none at all - at least when it comes to authority. (So yeah, not all middle-ground solutions are right smack in the middle. Some veer toward one side, but very rarely are they located at the very extreme end. If the French were totally unhinged contrarians their country would have been in ruins, might not even exist now.)

True, Germans are hardly the only ones, they are just the most extreme example. The entire West has succumbed to this pre-Orwellian self-destructive, self-loathing, white-guilt pandemic, but Germans pursue it with more fanaticism and discipline than almost any other country, which is why they excel at the practical application of cultural Marxism more than anyone else - except perhaps Scandinavians, their brethren. They are just as bad, just as clueless, just as "enlightened" i.e. arrogant. But Scandinavians are anyway Germanic as well, plus the fact that their political power and influence is quite small compared to the Teutonic behemoth. What Germany does is key, not what Norway does. Norway could rot away and it would not affect the world... Too small.

Even Americans (or to be more precise you-know-who in cahoots with American communists), who started this whole bullshit in the first place, aren't quite as bad as Germans. There is a large segment of the U.S. population (predominantly white males) who strongly oppose cultural-marxist brainwashing. Some of them may not be actually aware that what they oppose is called "cultural Marxism", because the term is never used in the left-wing-controlled media, but they are sane enough to identify their enemy, and they oppose this insanity. The proof is in the presidential elections. A Trump scenario would be simply impossible in Germany, not just due to the coalition-like multi-party political system which is rather different from America's, but because the vast majority of Germans have been completely brainwashed to obey the Establishment, to believe in Disney-like neo-Marxist lies about "all-inclusive" societies.

After all, didn't Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome start embracing sexual perversion as an overture to their own demise?

It appears to be that the longer a government stays in power, the more it is trusted - in countries with Germanic mentality. Anglo-Saxon mentality is mostly the opposite: the longer someone is in power the less they are trusted. This is a far healthier attitude because power corrupts, and extended domination in positions of power only increases that power hence the corruption. Nobody should be in power for too long: common sense and basic tenets of democracy dictate this. This is why we have limits. (Well, Germans don't... Angela Merkel had been in power almost as long as Putin. In a real democracy - as opposed to a "left-wing democracy" - with all facts laid out on the table for voters to know, Merkel would have never won so many elections. Not even close. She kept winning because the German population wasn't presented with facts; their media is as corrupt and one-sided as for example Hollywood.)

Germany is currently already a class E dictatorship, the mildest type but still a dictatorship. Not a democracy anymore. Definitely not. Germans have had, for quite some time now, what I refer to as a "left-wing democracy" which is self-explanatory - especially to people aware of Germany's current political climate and the state of their polluted, politically-coloured anti-culture. Angela Merkel is (or rather, was) right-of-center, on paper at least, but her party made the shift toward the Left years ago, simply in order to survive in a political landscape that was (and still is) rapidly shifting towards a full-blown category C or even category B left-wing tyranny. (Category A? Not impossible either. Hitler's era is proof of that.) Merkel, a much softer and far less obvious version of Hitler (hence in a sense more lethal in the long-term), has been in power for 4 consecutive terms, which is always a strong warning sign that "something is smelly in the state of Denmark". The fact that Germans don't even have a term limit makes one seriously question their common sense. The fact that German highways are notorious for having no speed limits also indicates a certain fanatical unwillingness toward moderation and common sense. The only country in Europe with no speed limits for certain highways, for about 70% of them. Something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark, or at least their southern neighbours.

Speaking of the clever Danish, rotting Sweden has been a left-wing democracy for over half a century, or more. (They used to be pro-Nazi during and before WW2, so there are strong parallels to Germany's right-to-left extremist cattle-on-boat Teutonic/Tectonic shift.) The results of this harakiri decision are already obvious: I am fairly convinced that should things not change there in the foreseeable future, there will be no Swedish people in Sweden in 100 years. At least not many of them, and certainly they won't have ownership of their own country. This destiny could easily befall many western nations, so arrogantly confident in their current "state of progress", so fanatically unwilling to at least partially question multiculturalism, its many drawbacks. Europe is devolving (to someone who is right-wing), not evolving (which is what left-wingers naively believe).

Nature always punishes severe stupidity, it punishes lack of common sense which is often an outgrowth of lack of moderation. It punishes stupidity severely. This is only logical, and fair. (Well, it would be more fair if Free Will truly existed.) Behave stupidly and nature will usually make you suffer for it. This is how the universe works. Sweden, Germany, Spain and other minority-worshiping Disney-bubble nations who'd lost touch with reality will eventually learn this lesson, the very hard way. It might even be the last lesson they learn.

An example of how Cultural Marxism swung a social issue from one extreme to the other.

The terrorist propaganda organization LGBTP. (Not terrorist in the sense of planting bombs (at least not yet), but in the sense of blowing up young brains, leaving nothing but empty heads behind.) Only a little more than 50 years ago, some European countries had more-or-less "anti-gay" laws in place. 100 years ago, not to mention 200 years ago, homosexuals were treated pretty badly, which nobody should support. But now, many years later, during the "Enlightened Era", we have a complete reversal to the other extreme - and just as dumb, but even more damaging: gays have become the privileged elite, a minority that is deified, romanticized, and continually portrayed as intelligent and as victims - in all situations. Speak out against that dubious garbage which we refer to as gay rights (i.e. not against gays themselves) and you lose your job! (Very very very pre-Orwellian. Note that I use the prefix "pre", because in a fully Orwellian society it's forced exile or death camps for the offender.)

Even in Serbia, a socially very conservative country where gays are openly considered perverts by many, all male yellow-press "journalists" are gay. Literally all of them. Gay TV hosts are also on the rise, whereas they used to be non-existent. This kind of gay lobby dominance - in any sphere of Serbian society - would have been completely unimaginable, just 30 years ago. So can you imagine what it will be like if Serbia gets even more "enlightened"...

Deification of minorities is the cornerstone of Cultural Marxism; a very unhealthy, idiotic, suicidal stance. The majority should look after itself, first-and-foremost, because that is logical, rational and goes hand-in-hand with the will to survive: which means putting yourself/family/society - in that order - first. Not immigrants or sexual minorities: why the hell would they be your priority?

People who want to take care of others before themselves are either liars or have a "God complex", which means they secretly feel superior to those they pretend to help. Which is very ironic because they claim to be against racial or class supremacy.

This doesn't mean that minorities should be persecuted, far from it; it simply means there should be a natural pecking order. A very logical order. We had this order in Europe just a few decades ago, and things weren't bad, were they? Besides, isn't democracy based on the principles of the rule of the majority? Isn't a tyranny by definition rule of the minority? Or does anyone with common sense actually support five people making all the decisions in a village with a 1000 population? Ideally, yes, but only if by some miracle the village has five extraordinarily intelligent and morally pure individuals at their disposal, willing and able to guide the village. But this is of course very rarely the case.

So while deification of minorities is the basis of cultural Marxism, persecution of minorities is the cornerstone of ultra-nationalism. The Far Left way is unacceptably masochistic hence boundlessly stupid, whereas the Far Right way is unacceptably immoral (as well as stupid).

Both of these extremist ideologies are completely unacceptable, at least to a person with common sense, i.e. a moderate.

This is why the term "moderate liberal" had essentially disappeared from the U.S. political dictionary years ago, because Democrats had morphed into a socialist/Marxist entity in recent decades. They have no moderates in their ranks anymore. Whatsoever. Which by default means that the political diversity within their ranks has become virtually non-existent. Internal squabbles among Democrats are hence no longer ideological, but based on other reasons such as power and envy. Ironic and hypocritical, because Democrats always babble on about the "need for diversity". They hate diversity, they fight against it constantly and with rabid zealotry.

Democrats are class A liars and hypocrites. They have devolved to the point where they can't be trusted on anything. Literally nothing. And it is for this reason - mainly - that many right-wingers opposed the pandemic restrictions, because they had completely lost trust in the Left Establishment. These restrictions were/are necessary, but when proven liars promote them then your natural instinct is to rebel and not believe. (I personally did not oppose the restrictions, because I am able to distinguish between lies, semi-truths and truth.)

Far Left and Far Right. Two political extremes with completely different agendas, but with the identical end-result: destruction of society, including long-term damage, some of which may be irreversible. Only a complete and utter moron (or psychopath/sociopath/lunatic) can support either. Supporting ultra-nationalism means that you're essentially a primitive sadist, while supporting minority worship means you're a self-loathing masochist. Both these species are mentally ill, dumb.

"Neither a sadist nor a masochist be", is a line they omitted to include in the Bible. The holy book gives us all sorts of irrelevant nonsense, yet omits some of the most important tenets.

Ideally, on some fictional planet called Moderato we would be moderates primarily.

So there you go, another Vjetropev lecture full of wisdom and unassailable logic. A lecture that will be read by 50 people, at the most, hence won't change anything. Besides, most of those 50 people are likely to dislike what they read, because in the current world nearly everybody belongs to either of the two political extremes... The more dumbed-down and spoiled the western man becomes, the more likely he is to be drawn toward these extremes. Because: extremism = idiocy = childishness. This is a result of westerners speedily rushing towards rock-bottom, a not-so-distant future era when the vast majority will be so stupid that luring them into one type of extremism or the other will be as easy as stealing candy from a Marxist baby. (Coz Marxist babies anyway wanna share? Right? Wrong...)

But hey, at least you can heed the cat advice, right?