Many books written in the name of grand ideals, rigid ideology, whether about politics, economics, or religion, grind a personal axe. The sharp edges draw attention (people love blood, even when it is intellectually spilled!), and the evidence is abandoned for orthodox blows–in fact, fighting, by hand/weapon/or mind hasn’t changed much through the millennia; it abandons nuance, complex insights, cooperation, and important parallels for the unchanging purpose of the fight: power and submission, twins that are “right” by presumption of their victory.
These who love the fight are always on the look out for enemies, always looking to assert tautegorical existence, always in a state of outcry. They also seem to reject the issues of peace, the acceptance of unknowing uncertainty, and never admit to the possibility of being wrong.
I cannot respect nice people who oppress. I cannot find a way to accept that oppression as a part of a value system that argues it is a greater good. Kings did not have divine rights; manifest destiny was noble spin for cruelty and theft. The universe expands (science says). Those who reject it, who seek to narrow life by exclusion or through conflict stand in odds with the universe, and have missed its essential harmony, of which we are reminded of by its storms.
Looking pass the storm, the Euro focus of thought is a dying ember. It attracts those loyal to its burning coals. England once broke the church pews to feed its flames.
The Benedict Option https://nyti.ms/2nl4gh