The Circular Ideological Spectrum

In theory, ideological positions fall along a spectrum.  In practice, it is more a loop. The more extreme, the more a mirror of the opposition. This is intuitive for anyone aware of history, or detached enough from the current Right/Left dichotomy in the West at least to grasp. The historical example is how much Nazism Stalinism, although mortally opposed, were in practice merely different shades of the same brutal, totalitarianism, attempting to build utopia out of a mountain of skulls, and failing at the cost of tens of millions of lives.

In terms of the current Right/Left dichotomy, there is little to practically separate an actual "Alt Right" White Supremacist from an actual violent Anarcho Communist. Both espouse violence in favor of debate, forgo personal responsibility in all areas of life except in the practice of extreme ideology, and squarely place the blame for perceived ills on others, not to mention both are fundamentally detached from reality. 

Any addiction, including to ideology is unhealthy. It substitutes fantasy for truth, and destroys the agency of its victim. In the case of ideology, it is the beam in the eye of one trying to remove a speck from the opposition, or in this case the black hood on the one trying to remove the white bed sheet from the other.  Fortunately, vocal minorities in both directions do not generally speak for the majority of people simply more concerned with their day to day lives than media sophistry and rhetorical noise. The ratings though do seem to benefit. 

On the other hand, the hidden deception, far more banal because it passes as virtuous, possesses those claiming a position of faith in opposition to one of the two extremes. In the West, this often means Christians who may perceive themselves as boldly opposing injustice when they decry the rise of Fascism, Communism, Islamism, whatever happens to be readily and obviously worth opposing. Evil must indeed be opposed by the person of faith. It must be named, defined, its victims protected, if need by at the greatest risk to the person of faith. We rightly remember those from the past who have done this as heroes. However, just as ideological extremes mirror each other the farther apart they become, so too does moral outrage become moral panic the more fashionable the object of that initial outrage. 

Both extremism, and moral panic are fundamentally disconnected from the complexity of the world. Both grossly oversimplify day to day existence. Both are evil manipulations of the human tendency for availability bias, and both are far more in keeping with mob behavior than heroic courage. Furthermore, both are fundamentally lacking in introspection. 

For the person of faith, the beam to be removed is the deception that the methods of the City of Man can bring the outcomes of the City of God. It is possible to work to good effect in the City of Man, but using its methods to further the latter will turn in into the former far more surely than the alternative.  Evil must be opposed, and preferably by rules it does not play and cannot beat. Leftist and Rightist extremism are both ridiculous at best and abhorrently sinister at worst. However, using one to combat the other, focusing on one while ignoring the other, or allying with the methods of one to confront the other, no matter how noble on the surface, is nothing short of moral prostitution, and idolatry. We do not look to win the game, but to destroy it. It is not that such idealism seeks too much, but rather too little. 

The methods of the City of God are faith, hope, and love. Forgiveness, reconciliation, compassion, mercy. It is ridiculous to expect these virtues from the City of Man, neither is it its place to exhibit them. The best it can do is equality before its laws. To think otherwise ignores history. The methods of the City of God though are firmly the responsibility, and unique capability of the individual and community of faith. Even in a totalitarian regime, the most important problems to fix are often right next door in the form of those needing shelter.  

In general, if it's easy to condemn, it isn't the deeper problem. Moral courage generally means taking a stand that actually assumes risk. Both ideological extremism and moral panic are hubris fueled mass self deceptions. The real extremism is to put childish utopianism behind us, and seek to change what we have the opportunity to. Perhaps with faith in these smaller works, greater ones will be opened. The homeless alcoholic, teen mother, depressed family member, etc need your help as much as the nebulous masses.  You will sooner see results with such skin in the game.          

Affluenza

Affluenza is a term that was recently made famous when 16 year old Ethan Couch was let off easy for causing the deaths of 4 people and critically wounding 2 others. He was reported to have been under the influence of several substances at the time in quantities that would make fraternity initiation nights look weak by comparison. The defense made the case he did not understand the consequences of his actions because his perspective was distorted by the amount of affluence he grew up in.

Now, a major sub-theme to the outrage against this ties into the ongoing observation prevalent in modern society that there is growing inequality and that more and more wealth is being pooled by the people at the top of the hierarchy. This truthful observations has often lead to the idea that the people taking over this wealth are bad and that being wealthy is somehow a crime in and of itself. Whether this is openly expressed or not, it is hard to ignore it's reality when people say things like the so called 1% should pay 90% tax on what they take in because no one needs (the implication is that they should not have) that much money.

The absurdity of this statement aside, it is indicative of deeper socio-emotional issues that do in fact require addressing. Protecting and expanding the middle class is important for economic and security reasons in and of it self. However, redistribution of wealth has been shown in so many ways and so many places before this to not be an effective measure for achieving this that there is no need to address it at length here. One does not need to go to some extreme right wing outlet for this information, only look at the countries in the world with large populations that have attempted the same and see that, not only was it not effective for protecting the middle class, it lead to the creation of a new hierarchies completely out of touch with reality.

However, the opinion still creeps that those on top should not be there and that penalties must be inflicted. So seldom though do we turn the leans of examination onto ourselves and look for what lurks beneath the surface.

It is not the case that inequality in the developed world is not a problem. Indeed it is and the resulting poverty is an insult to free and prosperous societies. However,  most of those often commenting on it from the angle that the rich must be punished to pave the way for justice have no perspective on poverty and justice and are themselves afflicted with affluenza.

There comes a time when it is important for those who wish to have a truly global perspective to recognize that "first world problems" are not the same as those faced by the multiple billions of people in the world below even the third world's poverty line, either in severity, scale, or otherwise. Poverty is a problem anywhere. Having to make fuel cost conscious choices about what type of car you drive, having to take a job you are over qualified for, even not having a job for an extended period of time is simply not the same thing as being faced with the choice of which child you will sell in order to pay for food for the other ones.

The wealthy are not the problem and being rich is not a crime. The discourse must focus, not on the redistribution of wealth to create pseudo-equality, but rather on limiting the ability of non-benign actors and organizations at the top of the hierarchy to make choices, which create the systemic conditions by which inequality grows, both here and abroad. Then again, doing this effectively will entail sacrifices. You will have to not buy what you cannot afford. You will have to pay attention to what you spend on, and you will often have to give up those low prices.

At the expense of those now unemployed because the production of those low cost goods went to an oppressive totalitarian regime in which workers lives are as expendable as the products they make. 

Introductions.

The purpose of this space is to discuss that which is overlooked, and that which is lurking under the surface. This is as much because that which you don't know can indeed kill you, as it is because the stone that the builders refused will become the head corner stone. It is also for that which is too inconvenient to discuss in politically correct modern society. In fact, it will be made clear in successive conversations that the issues most talked about and most contended are far less important than what they are being used to cover for. 

This is because just as dysfunctional families triangulate away their greatest problems, so too do troubled societies substitute that which does not mater for that which does to ease the discomfort. That being said, do not assume there will be any Tea partying going on, and don’t expect to be welcomed if you preach conspiracy theories. 

The leaning here is not Right or Left. Neither is it Libertarian or Anarchist. Rather, what we will discus here is fear and courage, shame and wisdom, chaos and order, and how these influence and underpin all that we do or fail to do in the public world. Despite our claims to rational thinking and behavior, faith is as much a part of the modern secular world as ever it was in more religious times past. Logic is used post facto to rationalize what were always emotional decisions because all that we do is influenced thus. 

This does not mean though that there is not free will. There would be little point in debating what is best if we did not expect we could positively act on it. All action requires will to one extent or the other. The questions then will circulate around to what degree emotion will master us or if we will master them to be the horse we ride upon to a greater good.