Some will say, when the needs of the isolationist are pointed out, that they wish to create a perfect world, in which nobody needs such hateful things. But, no such world can ever exist. The very attempt to create one, would call for the denial of the freedom of billions, to pass along their heriditary traits in all likelihood (including those innate instincts), and their cultures, with certainty. Given that the need to reproduce is what drives natural selection in the first place, the concept of a population that won't mind - won't violently mind - such an effort, is a fairy tale. Such an effort leaves one with a choice between being ineffectual, or starting an unwinnable civil war, and ending up dead, bitterly hated by the survivors, and even more ineffectual.

But even if such an effort can not succeed, let us never imagine that it will not make a difference. As we are fond of pointing out, character assassination by the radical left can have a devastating impact on moderates, because they seek to appeal to an individual's reason and sense of fair play. Those they seek to reach, will, by their nature, tend to shy away from hostility. But the power base of the radical right lives for it. As those who have grown tired of being bullied, or attacked begin to be consumed by their own rage, that base will grow.

As we have already seen, a world without prejudice can not exist. But as history never seems to tire of teaching us, a world without compassion is all too achievable. When we convince others, that exclusion and hate are synonomous, we do not eliminate the inevitable reality that some level of exclusion will exist, we merely make hate more respectable in the eyes of society, by coupling it to that inescapable reality, in the public consciousness. We have already seen, that the somewhat exclusionary societies, will consume the non-exclusionary ones from within. But, our false philosophy, ironically adopted in the name of love, will transform that reality, by insuring that the successfully exclusionary societies, will be those that have more fully embraced their hate.

The answer to this problem is not to deny reality, but to learn how to make a virtue of it. You can convince the French and the Germans that for one to wish to remain distinct from the other, is to hate the other, and your effort will be rewarded with hate in abundance. Or, you can accept that a small amount of self-indulgence may be rightly sacrificed for the greater good, and, as you promote the preservation of these differences, encourage people to take pleasure in them.

To be more precise, to let themselves take the level of pleasure in them that they will feel comfortable with, once they feel that their own traditions, and their own identities, are not threatened by those differences. People may come to view their presence as an opportunity to occasionally escape the tedium of daily existence, and enjoy a little adventure. But the difference between adventure and exile, is that you get to return home, after the former (3).

In such things, there is a very imperfect natural order, which events will push one back toward, should one attempt to leave it far behind. Whether it is a good order, or a bad one, is immaterial. What is relevant, is that if you try to push nature out of the way, it will shove you back, with greater force.

Thus, the call for moderation, rather than the call for a crusade to root out the "bad" aspects of human nature, or to transform the world. All such efforts are doomed to failure. What is sensible, is an effort to strike a sustainable balance, between our competing desires. The prudent man does not seek to force one enemy to love another, but merely to help each find a place where he escapes the other's hostility. We seek accomodation, not an unachievable reconciliation, valuing effectiveness over self-righteousness.



Yes, the open expression of isolationist sentiments has diminished in the last decade. But let's not lie to ourselves, about the nature of recent history. There was no spontaneous groundswell of unprecedented brotherly love. There is merely a lot of fear around, well founded in recent historical experience, that to speak against the concept of universal brotherhood, or anything else favored by Political Correctness, will result in whispering campaigns at one's expense, attempts to get one fired from one's job, or expelled from one's school, to take one's children away - all kept in place by a vocal minority that will gather together to mass harass lone authority figures who stand out from the rest, as they say "no" to requests to punish the 'unenlightened'.

But such a victory, gained through the suppression of free expression, is very precarious one, for no longer how long it is imposed through fear, it never becomes heartfelt. It merely becomes a source of, at most, suppressed resentment, waiting to boil forth to the surface the moment that the ruling clique seems to be weakened. Consider the fall of almost any previous authoritarian government, if you want an illustration of this (4). The false show of brotherhood gained for the moment, comes at the expense of a deep, and possibly violent hatred later. The more suppression that preceeds, the deeper the hate that can be expected to follow. If you consider this an acceptable trade, don't pretend that you make it for the sake of love.

So our advice here, and without hesitation we say that this is the best advice that you're ever going to get, is to accept the fundamental imperfections of human nature as a given to be worked around, not as an evil to be overcome.

Just let it go.


Let's return to the previous discussion.