It doesn’t matter if you are a liberal, a moderate, a conservative, a fascist, a communist or an anarchist, every segment of ideology produces magical thinking that puts people into a state of world denial.
For instance, liberals are often very happy to point their finger at libertarians and conservatives and shout “Conspiracy theory!” But have you ever examined how liberals talk about Russians or Chinese? They have plenty of conspiracy theories of their own. All notions, no matter how outlandish, are accepted uncritically when it involves an Asiatic culture.
Another example is conservatives, ever heard a conservative say “personal responsibility?” As if this invokes some kind of magical spell that solves problems. Meanwhile, if a mortgage holder tells Goldman Sachs to take some personal responsibility, suddenly police arrive at their door with eviction papers. Seems like this mode of thinking has mixed efficacy based on your personal income.
Socialists love to say “Well, under socialism, such and such is no longer a problem.” Really now? Because of what? Wizards? Of course it is. Stop trying to imagine your way out of war, crime and poverty. They will obviously be problems. At most you can argue they will be problems that the populace are less inhibited to resolve.
And then you got the fascists, who will frequently say things I’m sure. But I don’t know what they say since I have no interest in listening to them and would ideally see them all get rounded up and put to work in a mine somewhere.
…what? I’m respecting their values, they hate human rights and I’m willing to make a compromise.
If your worldview purports to solve all problems and make everything better than it was before then I hate to tell you, but you don’t have a worldview. You have a gaudy syrupy looking billboard blocking your view of the world.
The idea is not to better the world, but to reconcile your circumstance within such a world. None of us can change the world, ideology should be about examining the best ways in which the world may change us. That’s very different from the insanity people are taught in schools.
First we must ask ourselves, what is our nature? What is life? And also, what is death? For instance: What would you actually die for? Would you die to save a stranger? What about 5 strangers? Or 10? Most of us would die for our loved ones, but this question is a more interesting one.
What about actions? What would you actually be willing to do to survive? What’s the worst thing you think you could do out of desperation? Would you die for honour? Or is life the most essential quality to your worldview?
These questions are pretty big, and say a lot about how you see the world. Is the world merely this interactive environment in which you exist as some self-aware being? Is there a point scoring system of some kind? Precisely to what extent do you take responsibility to the consequences of your actions?
Secondary consequences? Tertiary consequences? Maybe you’re a monist, at which point, what is the distinction between taking responsibility for absolutely everything and absolutely nothing, in a somewhat tactile sense?
It was because of inquiries like these that my schoolteachers genuinely hated me. And that’s understandable, they had a new generation of labourers to indoctrinate and I was asking questions when I should’ve been carrying out assignments without critical regard for their purpose or efficacy.
What I am getting at is that life isn’t so much about living as it is about being. Ted Bundy lived, and his living was only relevant until the day he died. Meanwhile, what Ted Bundy was being is something that’s stuck around for considerably longer.
Our being is central to how we exist, our being can exist for millenniums. Moreover, it is our being that can produce happiness and fulfilment and purpose. To be inspired, to be awed, to be humble, to be in love, all good things about life are framed by this condition.
And moreover, courage is a fascinating virtue wherein we would rather be, than to live. The courage of soldiers, firefighters, sometimes even doctors. To risk your own life for some kind of state of being, some kind of ontological essence which may very well kill you. That’s courage. To value being above living.
The reason I mention this is because more often than not, ideology magic teaches us to wish for a world without courage. A world without room to grow. A world without challenge, or hardship, or adversity.
In my own ideology I do not deny these things. What I believe is possible is not some utopia or perfect world where problems are solved. Rather, I want better problems. I want violence to stop being so senseless, and that when we fight, it’s for something worth fighting over. I want hunger and poverty to stop being so deliberate and willful. I want people to go hungry because of droughts or hurricanes, not because of banks or credit statements.
Because in the former, at least humanity is on their side. At least then we can all band together and try to end the hunger. But banks and credit statements, this poverty of documents and bills, that kills millions of people. It forces people to sleep on park benches. It makes us all into very shameful beings.
I want the poverty of natural disasters, and human error, and accidents. I don’t want the poverty of greed, and usury and godlessness. This kind of heathen poverty is vulgar to any being endowed with sapience and humanity.
My own radical view is not one that promises an end to problems, rather, it promises problems we can solve, and accept. This is more suited for mortality, and it is worth reflecting upon. Think not of how you can define the world, but how the world defines you. This is where I believe we find God’s truth.
