[467] Forward March

“Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.”

I think political ideology and religious affiliation draw many parallels. None moreso than in their illustration of the problems with language. Consider the opening line. Now pretend you were a Nazi who got in on the ground floor. Are we not angry at big business, calling for the rich to pay their fare share, and learning more about socialist systems today? Say we didn’t know Hitler and Trump played to our hearts in the same way. Saved the move to anti semitism until after he was elected. What position would the OG socialists be in then? 

I think this is much of the conversation when it comes to extremism. Hashtags about who is or isn’t a “real” Muslim. Are white guys “Christian terrorists” or “lone gunmen?” More importantly, I think it speaks to the kind of childish high school nature of the conversation. It’s like asking “who’s cooler? The Fonz or One Direction?” The pretentious know-it-all brings up points about history and context, the superfan points to number of views and followers, and perhaps a teacher quietly weeps to themselves in the corner trying to ignore how impressed he is these kids know who The Fonz is. 

You’ll never reach an answer that can be regarded as “objective,” and your metric of judgment, your opinion, will never be the same. For something like music or television, we’re safe. No one has to base policy on such stupid questions. No one is motivated to shoot people because “you have to like this album, or else.” 

I like to go with a strategy of “at once the same.” For those who, perhaps too closely, identify with their title of their faith, they run into problems doing this. In general, holy books call for violence, and it’s rather disingenuous to listen to someone openly and proudly state their inspiration for a terrorist act and then say “nah, what do they know?” Of course bombers and shooters are “real Muslims and Christians.” Trying to deny their identity is a failing attempt to absolve your own. 

At once the same, there are the vast majority of so-named “moderates.” I find it generally hilarious that by simply not shooting or blowing something up, you’re considered “moderate” in your temperament or ideas. Is it not the most ardently faithful that show up to abortion clinics? Is it not the ideologically radicalized that formed the Tea-baggers? (I refuse to consider them a party) Here, though, is an opportunity to slip into the role of scientist. You can look for root causes. You can describe the nature. You can test the consequences. 

This is what I try to do when I say things about “eliminating religious thinking.” I think what underlies violence is a cultural habit of protecting ignorance. We draw lines between us and them habitually, pretending, denying we couldn’t be them or our ideas could never reach that point. No, you’ll probably not turn into a terrorist, but less dramatically, consider how many people are shocked they turned into their parents. 

I say, challenge people to define their terms. Ignore the stupid media getting into high school hallway pissing matches, which by design, are never meant to resolve or progress. When you do this, you’ll find everything doesn’t feel stuck and hopeless, that’s merely what your apparatus is teaching us to be. From disparaging comments online to the Fox and Friends, our Screen Teachers are damming and ignorant. We don’t have to play along.