We all have a worldview; convictions about our origins, the natural order of things, the purpose of life and theories about where it’s all heading.
We develop our worldview from a few inborn tendencies, our parents, our culture, our circumstances and our personal experiences. Obviously, we end up with different worldviews. Who is to say which one is correct?
While uncertainty is just part of our own limitations, a few things are certain. Not rules, but rather a principle: Treat others as you want to be treated. There are no loopholes in that. What you desire, you must extend to others, or you are, by definition, a despicable hypocrite.
For some reason, I have apparently encountered more KKK, Neo-Nazis and far right-wing militia-types than most. Since I like human beings and these are all human beings, I listen to them and ask questions. Here is a brief summary of their generalized worldview:
- My tribe is the best. (Actually, the left also believes this, but they won’t say it so bluntly.)
- There is a natural (therefore good) hierarchy Look around: Darwin, law of the jungle, predators at the top of the food chain, superiors and inferiors. To interfere with this order is to invite chaos and destruction and plunge the world into a new dark age.
- The natural order should be reflected, in society: rich over poor, strong over weak, men over women, WASPs over all others.
- The world is now full of conflict and chaos, because the natural order is being deliberately subverted by evil enemies. These may include Marxists, Jews, multi-culturalists, brown people, etc.
- Disease, disorder, destruction of the family and the death of a wholesome way of life will result if action is not taken. Now.
- Since civilization itself is in danger, the heroic must act to preserve everything good in the world from everything slimy and evil. Violence is acceptable in this life and death strugggle, guns are necessary, law and order must be restored.
I am not mocking the right-wing worldview; mocking of worldviews is a silly, ineffective pastime much enjoyed in the USA, because, I suspect, it is fun!
Consider this: Have you read Ander Bering Breivik’s 1,500 page Manifesto? Breivik is neither stupid nor mentally ill; I, for one, would feel more comfortable if he were. Given his thesis, his conclusions are valid. His thesis is that EU open borders means a vast influx of (Muslim) immigrants, who are out-breeding Norwegians. Eventually, they will use Norwegian tolerance and democratic institutions to vote themselves into power, thus taking over Norway without firing a shot. He further said he could not bring this up for debate because debate was not tolerated on this issue, and therefore he had to go shoot over 70 kids at a socialist youth camp to make his point.
Rather than throw out everything he says, it would be wise to take a look at it. Are open borders a good idea, a workable idea? Should there be limits? Should unpopular ideas be given a forum? Can questions be asked without mockery or even arrests by the thought police? Was Breivik, in any way-correct?
Perhaps in a few areas, he was. We should look at those areas with clarity and honesty for a change.
But Breivik was definitely wrong (as are we all) when he violated this:
Treat others as you want to be treated.
If he had asked himself how he would feel if a ‘multiculturalist’ came to a right-wing campground and murdered himself and 70 of his friends, he would say that would be wrong, morally repugnant, evil. And thus he would have had the true measure of his own actions.