Questions are often raised about the Fireaxe theory either during discussions with others or when I'm re-reading or writing essays for the newsletter. Since many of the questions do not require long answers I'll handle some of them here and in future editions of The Burning Blade. Feel free to send in your questions.

Regarding the nature of ideologies:

Q. Is it a contradiction that ideologies follow natural selection but are self-destructive?

A. In reading about how the Fireaxe theory posits that ideologies must continue to grow, even beyond their ability to sustain themselves or face ideological mutation, one might think that ideologies do not follow the laws of natural selection. Simply put, they are doomed from the start. And since they are fated to not last forever, but could last forever since they are not made of flesh and blood, it seems that stating that they are competing in a game of survival is a fallacy. In the end, or at least after a reasonably long period of time, all the current ones will be gone, replaced by others which may be very different.

A good counter-argument is that if you look at natural selection in the evolution of life over a long period of time, such as tens of millions of years, you will see plenty of significant mutations as well as extinctions occurring and that the species which were alive in one era are often vastly different than those of a previous era. Yet, natural selection did indeed guide that process even though there are no "winners", that is, there are no species that have survived through all those eras.

That argument does fall a bit flat since self-destructive ideologies are more analogous to a single, suicidal life form rather than a particular species. If natural selection truly was at work, why would ideologies evolve that are self-destructive?

The simple answer is that the forces which result in the self-destruction of an ideology are the same ones that enable it to arise and gain power in the first place. These forces are an integral part of the survival of the ideology and they simply cannot be "turned off". Instead, things such as enhanced motivation and increased aggression are both what allow an ideology to exist in a world populated by rival ideologies, and which lead to overreach and collapse when rival ideologies can no longer hold them in check. The more detailed answer involves gaining a deeper understanding of what ideologies are and do.

The Fireaxe theory contends that all ideologies are both oppositional in nature and that they are based on falsehoods. These two traits are both a survival advantage for the ideology and a source of its eventual self-destruction. The oppositional nature of an ideology pits it against one or more rival ideologies which are seen as having a number of flaws and inadequacies. Those flaws and inadequacies are often portrayed as being repugnant, "evil", and unnatural, and the members of an ideology are implored to fight against its rival ideology and oppose its unenlightened ways. This opposition can take many forms depending on the relative strengths of the ideologies in question. Weak ideologies will simply fight for survival against a more powerful foe. Ideologies of equal strength will compete against each other in many ways over disputed resources, and include fighting in the economic, military, and diplomatic realms as well as the realm of ideas. Powerful ideologies will seek to subordinate or eradicate rival ideologies, but the important point is that no matter how powerful an ideology gets, it will always have a rival, finding a new one if the old ones are defeated, as well as a reason to make war on it. The oppositional nature of an ideology is something that will not go away.

Falsehoods are promises that the ideology makes to its members which serve to motivate them. But these promises are false because they cannot be delivered, at least in the collective and continuous sense. Although great rewards can be promised and delivered to individuals, and minor rewards delivered to all the members of an ideology, every promise made to every member simply cannot all be met. However, this is not necessarily a problem, especially in the short term, and in fact it is a necessity for ideologies to make such grandiose promises to its members.

The greater the promise, the more motivated the individual, and ideologies thrive when their members are at their most empowered. Ideologies are able to sell these false dreams by using conditioning to instill in their members a deep sense of inadequacy, which, in the Fireaxe theory, I call the "permanent psychological deficit". This sense of inadequacy can be temporarily relieved by chasing, and by making at least some progress towards, the false dreams of the ideology. For instance, when a Christian is conditioned to believe in the doctrine of original sin, he knows that he is destined to a life of eternal torment unless he follows the rules of his ideology. By following those rules and resisting temptation, the Christian feels rewarded, and believes that he has taken another step towards heaven. Similarly, when a member of a merit based ideology is conditioned to believe that success and victory are the measures of his self-worth and income, he knows that he'd better work hard every day or else he will end up poor, miserable, and unloved. But by working hard and receiving a paycheck or realizing some amount of self improvement, he can extrapolate a trend which will eventually place him at his goal.

In a world of competing dreams and promises, the ones which are the most compelling push aside those which have less to offer, and thus the dreams that an ideology must embrace and sell must be more magnificent than all the others. From this perspective it is not difficult to see why unrealistic and unattainable dreams arise to capture the imaginations of the masses. But promises are cheap, and the rewards don't have to be delivered until after the work has already been done, so ideological promises will naturally tend towards the fantastic, such as an eternity of bliss in heaven, reincarnation into a better life, or the chance of becoming a champion, or famous, or wealthy, or powerful in your natural lifetime. Otherworldly goals are non-falsifiable and so glorious dreams can be sold by religions, con men, and deluded believers without them ever requiring an ounce of solid proof that they will one day be delivered. However, the religion itself must offer some real-world form of confirmation that it is the true way and thus all promises, real or fantastic, must be supported by the acquisition of more resources by one's ideology. Small rewards can be used to leverage larger promises and thus stimulate one's thirst for more.

Tournaments are a perfect example of how a false dream enables maximum motivation. All competitors can become the champion of a tournament but only one will, however, everyone can use the same dream to motivate them to push beyond their limits. Compare that situation to one where everyone was rewarded more or less equally and far less than the victor in a winner-take all format. The competitors wouldn't be nearly as motivated and the competition wouldn't be nearly as exciting. Tournaments let us experience the dream vicariously, and the dream of having our favorite win it all motivates us to encourage the competition and nurture the power of the false promise. Also, the example of the tournament shows how the falsehood of everyone being able to become a champion is rationalized by competitors and fans alike. They accept the system, that everyone has a chance of winning and that the winner should receive a far greater reward than everyone else, but in reality making sacrifices while trying to attain a grand prize is very much like having a gambling addiction. Amidst the broken bodies and shattered dreams we can all rejoice as we satisfy our fix.

Of course, if all false promises were revealed as such in a short period of time, an ideology would quickly run out of members, so the majority of the faithful must be able to make some amount of progress towards goals which support the ideology in order to keep the cycle going. This is why ideologies must grow and why ideologies will come into conflict with each other, they inevitably end up fighting over the resources required to reward the hard work and devotion of their members. Now, one might ask, wouldn't the fruits of their labors be enough to satisfy the hopes and dreams of the members of an ideology? After all, war is costly, and if you do not win, the cost is not repaid. But in the world of competing dreams, victory tastes much sweeter than a diplomatic compromise. And although both sides cannot win, both sides can dream of winning, and both can imagine the rewards which will supposedly come when they vanquish their enemy. That is enough motivation to gamble one's fate on the outcome of violent conflict.

When it comes to motivation, both the carrot and the stick are powerful tools, and while the promises of dreams and rewards provide plenty of motivational carrots, to fully motivate its members, an ideology must provide a source of fear. It is here where the oppositional nature of ideologies comes into play. Successful ideologies are ones which demonize the opposition, turning them into entities to be shunned, resisted, defeated, or destroyed. Images of powerlessness, despair, suffering, and death if a rival ideology is allowed to gain more power allow an ideology to turn fear into a motivational source which can be directed towards fighting against rival ideologies. Thus, the two ideological traits of having an oppositional nature and of selling false dreams provide direct and powerful psychological motivation to the members of the ideology, and highly motivated people are generally those who emerge victorious.

And so, survival in a world of rival ideologies requires that an ideology produce highly motivated individuals, which is done by using exaggerated rewards and fears. This can be a very successful strategy in the short term, taking an ideology from a modest start with few members to one of global significance with millions of followers. But at a certain point, generally when it becomes more powerful than its rivals and its survival is assured, one might expect, or hope, that the desires of the members of an ideology will be quenched and that the ideology will become much less aggressive. Certainly, individuals within an ideology have been known to become sated by success, allowing themselves to sit back and enjoy the fruits of victory and often becoming overindulgent in the process, but the basic equation, that highly motivated people will generally win in competitions with others and thus reap greater rewards, still rings true. Thus, highly motivate people, even within a sated ideology, will work towards seizing more power for themselves. Once acquired, it is usually the case that they will use that power against their ideological foes both within and without. If there is little left to be gained outside of the ideology, individual rewards must come by taking from others, and thus civil war and ideological purges inevitably divide the strongest empires. Note that this infighting also occurs when ideologies are prevented from growing by external forces. The key is that when individuals cannot collectively advance towards their rewards, which requires growth, they will turn on each other, exacerbating an existing division or creating a schism if one did not exist already.

In conclusion, the forces that guarantee short term survival for an ideology are the same ones that guarantee that the ideology will self-destruct in the long term, but while a lack of those forces would give an ideology longevity, it would not be able to survive in the short term. Ideologies cannot survive in both the short term and long term. Thus, in a world of ideological natural selection, one would expect to observe a succession of self-destructive ideologies where survival in the short term necessarily comes at the expense of survival in the long term. Today becomes the critical imperative and tomorrow must be left to take care of itself.