Unlike established systems with clear rules (like Christianity), the modern left operates on "vague vibes" of ideological purity. This lack of a self-regulation mechanism creates a constant pressure to prove loyalty through extremism. As standards escalate, anyone who could provide a moderating influence is purged, leading to an endless cycle of radicalization.

History’s most shocking atrocities are defined less by their authoritarian leaders and more by the 'giant blob of enablers' who facilitate them. The current political climate demonstrates this, where professionals and politicians abdicate their expertise and principles to avoid conflict, becoming complicit in the process and allowing destructive ideologies to gain power.

Instead of incremental shifts around a moderate center (e.g., between 4 and 6 on a dial), US policy now swings violently between ideological extremes (3 and 9). This dynamic makes stable, consensus-based governance on issues like immigration nearly impossible.

A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.

Algorithms optimize for engagement, and outrage is highly engaging. This creates a vicious cycle where users are fed increasingly polarizing content, which makes them angrier and more engaged, further solidifying their radical views and deepening societal divides.

The inability for young people to afford assets like housing creates massive inequality and fear. This economic desperation makes them susceptible to populist leaders who redirect their anger towards political opponents, ultimately sparking violence.

Viewing the conflict as two rational sides in a misunderstanding is flawed. Both sides see the other as an existential threat and are willing to use extreme violence to achieve their goals. This reframes the narrative from a political dispute to a primal, violent tribal conflict where both sides see themselves as righteous.

A recurring political pattern involves well-intentioned progressive policies being implemented without regard for practical consequences (e.g., border management). This creates a political vacuum and public frustration that the far-right exploits, leading to a severe, often cruel, overcorrection that dismantles both the flawed policy and underlying positive intentions.

The conventional wisdom that moderate candidates are more electable is a myth. Elections are won by turnout, not by appealing to the median voter. A polarizing figure who excites their base will often win by a larger margin than a moderate who fails to generate enthusiasm.