Not Left vs.Right, But Skeptic vs. Fanatic

The Zman says, in "The Cancer of Fanaticism," that we should get off the conventional political axis of Left to Right, as in Commies and Nazis, and think instead of the continuum from absolute skepticism to absolute fanaticism.

For instance, he writes, his teachers taught him to think about good Germans, who might, but did not, stand against the evil of Hitler. Wrong question, because the Nazis and Commies all thought of themselves as the good guys:

These were not people who thought of themselves as evil or on the wrong side of history. To the contrary, they saw themselves as the champions of light, fighting the forces of darkness. As such, they were duty bound to use any means necessary to win. Maybe the people at the top were more cynical, as is usually the case, but the rank and file were the truest of true believers.

So, a "good German" would just be a different "champion of light," fighting a difference force of darkness. And how far would he have got battling the champions of light in the government?

A better scale, especially in the current age, is probably one that has the true believer at one end and the non-ideological skeptic at the other. 

The point is, though, that nobody can be a complete skeptic, because you have to believe in something, and nobody can be a complete true believer, because you have to deal, at some level, with reality.

But, in fact, there is no limit on the belief of the believer, because "the next step on the road to paradise and each step is more inviting than the next, at least to those built to seek it."

The only thing that stops the fanatics is a leash, to limit the ability "to seek the ultimate goal."

The cunning trick of Christianity was that the ultimate goal, "that grace was for the next life," put a leash on the fanatics. But with the left's "immanentizing of the eschaton," with the notion that real justice can be achieved in this life, that leash is gone.

Thus the "metastasizing cancer in the form of increasingly deranged true believers... Either the cancer is removed, or the host will die."

Of course, the whole point of limited government and due process is precisely to put the leash on the fanatics, in the era of sadder wiser people in the aftermath of the Reformation and its "religious wars." And the fact that the fanatics have no idea of this has at least this benefit, that the rest of us look upon the fanatics and their deeds and are scared straight that we need to stop these guys before they get to the social nuclear button.

By no idea I mean, e.g., the notions among Democrats that we need to abolish the Electoral College or the composition of the Senate to reflect population rather than states. These people have no clue. Sarah Hoyt points to the importance of "oral traditions" of experts that know all the things you need to know that are not in the books and not in the science: the kind of things you learn hanging out with the guys. Anyone that has been around the block a couple times knows that the details of the Founding and its constitutional framework are one of the wonders of the world, ancient or modern. And one of the things our constitutional framework does is, by secret hidden channels, put the brake on the fanatics.

But no lefty kid or budding "activist" has a clue about such things. How come, they whine, that you can win the presidency without a majority of the total vote? Well, because, honey, the founders figured that they needed to prevent the big states from eating the small states for breakfast.

Now my line is to agree with Nietzsche that we are Beyond Good and Evil, an era he presents, naughtily, as "the priests" teaching us to hate ourselves. His vision is the creative hero (who has to be hard) going on his quest  without fear in the land beyond Good and Evil.

But what Nietzsche does not quite get around to is that 97.2 percent of creative heroes fail. As in the business startup culture. That is why he must teach hardnesss.

And when you get beyond Nietzsche to Jung and Peterson, you are talking about the Sacrificial Hero acting on the boundary between Order and Chaos. The Sacrificial Hero does not get to impose his vision of the perfect world on the world. He only gets to point to it, after the completion of his Hero's Journey into the Underworld (of the unconscious).

Here is the problem with our lefty fanatics. They want to play all the parts: the Hero, the Priest, the Teacher, the Executioner. I think it was Bottom the Weaver that wanted to play all the parts.

What we need is a new social vision that separates the Good and Evil part -- which is the proper concern of the People of the Responsible Self -- from the Creation and Destruction part, which is the world of the People of the Creative Self.

Decide what you want to be: responsible or creative, and understand that once you have made the journey from the Land of Responsibility to the Land of Creativity then the question of Good and Evil and punishing the Evil-doers has become, for you, penny-ante stuff. You should leave that to the little people. For you must realize that the Creator, living life as an example to others on the border between Order and Chaos, is probably doomed to destruction. That is why the Jungians call him a Sacrificial Hero. And because you are hard you accept that daunting truth.

That is what our liberal fanatics do not understand. They think that the great "activist," battling for "justice" for the traditionally marginalized, gets to be enthroned and worshiped and venerated in this world, trailing clouds of glory.

No, lefties, that is not how the world works, and the world is waiting for you to grow up  and learn it.