This is based off of a response I gave to a previous question.
I refuse to fall into the trap of the neo-ism-ist. I don’t play well with others for a reason, perhaps because I have seen where that path generally leads…oblivion. I reserve the right to dwell on the edge and live in the fringe where I can throw rocks at the extremes on both sides of the social spectrum. I have reeled against the rise of the police-state mind set and the anarchist mind set steeped in it’s identity politic. The far left and far right both have their inherent faults. One could say that I ride the pendulum as it swings one way or the other. I just happen to be slightly right of center most of the time though, where I am somewhat comfortable, stirring the pot from time to time and pissing off the occupants of the left. (I am tempted here to say “the cellar dwellers on the left”, poking fun at them for being creatures that live in their mom’s basement and play World of Warcraft video games and perpetually unemployed or simply too lazy to get a real job and move out of their parents house)… but I digress.
@Griz recently reminded me of a fact that some of us fail to recognize, a bird has two wings; one left and one right, both of which are necessary for the bird to fly. Remove one of those wings and the bird falters, and plummets to the ground, then withers and dies. And so it is with society, like a bird, it needs both wings to fly. There needs to be a balance between left and right if society is to survive and flourish.
Question: How do we find that balance without killing each other.
© 2026 – SoulSequel
8 responses to “Hindsight is an exact science…”
That’s very attractive about you, that you do weigh both sides and find where the truth (for you) rests in the middle. Your talent for finding the logical balance is why we get along so well.
As for hindsight being an exact science, it is true. What has happened in the past cannot be changed. What is future, may be changed ahead of time. Only now can be altered as it is happening.
Sometimes, I look at things I did in the past and wonder for a moment if I meant for that to happen that way. However, based on results, I must have meant it at the time. It cannot be changed. So, I don’t dwell on it. I get on with life.
Balance might be found by throwing the other side something good to chew on rather than just throwing a rock at them!
Yea, I know. That’s a considerable sacrifice of instant gratification for the sake of a better possible future.
But in a way our rise to self conscious awareness is predicated upon this kind of sacrificial behavior in the short-term.
BTW, the analogy of the bird is brilliant!
Actually the victimhood enragement groups have done a lot to sabotage the notion that hindsight is an exact science.
Feminism for example has done considerable twisting, warping and “negative editing” of the past to render its victimhood constructs such as the evil white patriarchy.
It pulls fourth just the examples of the Evil Tyrant aspect of the male archetype; while totally overlooking the Wise Ruler and Sacrificial Defender aspects of male expression.
It would be like the men rendering a destructive assessment of Womanhood based just on the Evil Witch casting her charms and the Toxic Mother devouring her offspring (or society as a whole!): and totally dismissing all examples of the Good and Nurturing Mother of us all, nobly laying that which she loves more than herself on the altar of the future.
It takes zero nobility to accentuate the negatives in others. The victimhood identity outrage groups have settled for a path of zero nobility for the sake of catering to (being possessed by?) negative feelings.
History of the 20th Century has proven beyond any shadow of any doubt, that this is a toxic path leading to consummate evil.
(Yea, I know that’s juicy. But better some juicing now to avoid a lot of blood-shed later).
Identity politics minions really need to give themselves a good shake and see what it is they are standing for Reconstructionist postmodern Neo Marxism), and where that inevitably leads.
(Recommended reading the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It makes Nazism look like fluffy bunnies by comparison).
I have a very skilled uncle. He’s a tradesman, but a tradesman in that he does everything. He can weld, fix cars, carve wood, machine with manual mills and lathes, fishes, hunts, built his house, plumbing, amazing cook (actually does all the smoked salmon for a famous restaurant), and the like. I was talking to him one 4th of July and I was picking his brain.
“Max, how do you determine what to pay people?”
“I don’t give them a price. I go in, tell them what’s required to do the job, and then I tell them to pay me what they think it’s worth. If they screw me, I never do another job for them. If they treat me well, I’m usually doing repeat work for them, and they recommend me to people.”
“Have you thought about hiring people or anything like that?”
“I figured out in my early 20’s that I just don’t like people. So I have always worked on my own, by myself.”
As long as I’ve known him, he always thinks through issues, and is not an “extremist” in his views. Although, even though he’s been quite consistent with unchanging views over the last 34 years of my life, he would now be considered an extremist by many on the far left and far right.
I should post the Brazilian Buttlift infomercial again, ………
You need to turn off fox news.
If the left & the right all killed each other the majority population would have some funerals & go back to living their own lives as usual, & not some stupid politician’s.
I’d been talking about this with some friends a few weeks ago. I think the problem isn’t just about finding the balance between the two extremes, it’s remembering that the “left” and the “right” are not black and white divisions between two halves of the United States.
E.g. many civilians think that the “right” is right, or the “left” is the right cause, and they will fight tooth and nail for it, but then fail to realize that in congress and the senate, the left and right STARTS TO BREAK DOWN, and congressmen and women and senators ACTUALLY GET ALONG just like in any other workplace. And there will be reps who will be pro-choice, and there will be dems who are racist. They are individual people with individual life experiences and understanding. So, basically, if they can get along, and they can have these nuances, why can’t we? And, more importantly, why should WE CIVILIANS identify with one side or another? We are voters – that’s all!
Instead, what I feel like, is that we treat politics the same way we treat baseball, and team A won the presidential election over team B, therefore hooray! When in reality it’s not a competition.
Over to the subject of neo-nazis and antifas, those guys represent neither party, really, because from what I’ve seen, with the exception of the person in chief who had to have things explained to him afterwards, congressmen and senators want nothing to do with those groups and even condemn them.
How do we not kill each other? We ditch the whole dichotomy culture of the US. We remember that we are just to silently listen to what each candidate has to say, we look at the policies they endorse – nothing else, not the prettiness of their words or their demagoguery – and we decide to vote for one or the other depending on what is in our own best interest. That’s how I understood the US democracy was supposed to work. E.g. a coal miner voting for Trump, I can understand. A solar power plant worker voting for him because his fathers and forefathers always voted rep, that’s just… plain silly…
@georockstar09
An astute assessment IMHO.
The key problem is in treating it like a game with sides and teams. This plays so easily into them becoming ideologies, and the followers of them just ideologues who will accept something just because it came from “their team”; or reject even a good idea just because it came from “the other team”.
Did you see @immortal_pirate ‘s comment in one of the threads about a bird needing two wings to fly?
@georockstar09
Sports-philosophy: Only one winner…
…everybody else is a loser.
People with sports-philosophy see participation awards for very young children as heresy to the point that they truly believe it’s a threat to civilization, even though the switch to the one winner system happens very quickly and early & will dominate a kid’s childhood.
The fact that sports pages in local papers are usually more voluminous than the rest of the current events is a symptom to me of a pervasive mental laziness in us all,… or maybe local papers just usually suck.