True believers, fanaticism, and religious zealotry

Some stuff inspired by reading Neo Neo con.

I can't really say whether this kind of belief system is better termed fanaticism, true belief, or simple religious zealotry. There are differences to those 3, but since nobody really talks about them I've found that I have had to make the differences up by myself.

But I will say that anyone who tries to destroy the United States and replace it with their own system, is a potential enemy. However, this differs a bit from how the Left works. True patriots on both sides of a conflict can have a reasonable conversation. Why? Because, even if they are fighting for different countries and putting their faith and belief in different countries, they actually have a lot of common traits. Not all the time, even people on the same side can have different ideas about whether to use violence or not (Malcom X Martin Luther King J) However, the idea of reasonable discourse, a "parley" if you will, between two opposing mortal enemies, is something I accept out of hand.

Yet the Left does not. Why? Is it because the Left has no history of military action, and therefore no history of reasoned conduct with the enemy? Is words and propaganda the only means by which they discourse with the enemy? Is it because the Left are not true patriots talking with true patriots because they don't believe in a nation at all? Lots of questions, and few if any answers.

The Left, in my view, don't act like true believers. Because true believers are not crazy, insane, out of control, or anything like that. Fanatics are out of control, true believers have more control than that.

A true believer, like an American patriot, can explain to you exactly why he believes America is good and her enemies are evil. Without any doubt, without any need to resort to anger to bolster their self-confidence or contempt for the enemy. It simply "is". It exists. For the true believer, reality is as reality is, and if reality is something else and that conflicts with his true beliefs, then he will change reality to his true beliefs. Nothing else matters.

The Left doesn't act like true believers, since I tend to believe if they were truly confident in their beliefs, they would go off like a steam engine every once in awhile. The Left spends little to no time considering the consistency of their beliefs. They also don't spend a lot of time considering how to best effect their beliefs.

For example. If they believe Hitler is bad because he killed people, then they should think about how to stop people from being killed in the same manner (Iran). People like Neo have heartfelt and true beliefs in certain things like human rights, and that is one reason why she refused to stay with the Left.

The psychology behind that is interesting. Because a true patriot, a true believer in America for example, would actually do armed insurrection if they believed the government of america was corrupt and taken over by the enemies of America, foreign or domestic.

If a person is loyal to the government and always the government, bar nothing, then that person is a fanatic, he is a feudal retainer.

In conclusion, a person with inconsistent beliefs and bad self-esteem, bolstered by the reassurance and warmth of rage and anger, cannot be said to truely believe in the things that they state as their beliefs.

It doesn't what the beliefs are. It only matters at what level do they hold their own beliefs in confidence. If someone fears even hearing the opposition, just how strong is that person's mind anyways? And can a person truly be said to be a true believer, if he is so weak mentally that anything can pass through and grip him in a righteous rage?

Fanaticism applies more readily to enraged beserkers. And the Left, are if anything, kind of beserk right now.