Talking with Ultra-Right

January 21, 2025 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

The term ‘ultra-right’ often refers to ideologies rooted in a strong sense of (any, mostly home-made) tradition and its deeply cherished values. From the AURELIS perspective, such views can sometimes emphasize stability and identity in ways that may limit openness to broader perspectives.

Engaging with these ideologies requires an approach based on mutual respect and understanding, seeking to build bridges rather than deepen divides. Compassionate dialogue, focused on shared humanity and deeper motivations, provides a way to connect and foster meaningful conversations. In conversations with individuals who align with rigid ideologies, compassion can be transformative.

The challenge beneath the surface

Rigid ideologies frequently stem from subconscious fears, such as a sense of identity loss or insecurity in a rapidly changing world. These fears often operate at a level that is not fully accessible through rational argument, making direct confrontation counterproductive. Instead, we can focus on engaging the total person, including their deeper, subconceptual layers of thought and emotion.

As discussed in “Your mind-brain, a giant pattern recognizer,” these deeper patterns are shaped by the brain’s ability to process subconceptual information. Addressing these patterns invites us to see beyond surface-level opinions and engage with the emotional roots of beliefs.

Compassion as a transformative force

Compassion allows us to transcend defensiveness, creating a space for openness and growth. When people feel respected and understood, they are more likely to lower their defenses and engage meaningfully.

For example, rather than countering a rigid statement with a correction, respond to the emotional concern underlying it: “I hear that you’re worried about the safety of your community. That’s an important concern — what experiences have shaped your perspective?” This acknowledgment validates their feelings without endorsing their stance, opening the door to a more thoughtful exchange.

Compassion also connects us through shared values. By focusing on mutual goals, such as a desire for stability or a better future, you can create a foundation for dialogue. As explored in “Inclusivity and depth,” finding commonality is essential for bridging divides.

Practical guidelines for meaningful conversations

These help foster constructive and compassionate conversations that focus on understanding and connection rather than division:

Start with Openness

Approach the conversation without preconceived judgments about the person’s beliefs or motivations. Openness creates a safe space for dialogue.
Example: “Instead of immediately labeling someone’s views as wrong or harmful, try asking, ‘What experiences shaped your perspective on this?’ This allows the person to feel heard and may encourage them to lower their defenses.”

Focus on Compassion, not agreement

Compassion isn’t about condoning harmful views but about understanding the human being behind them.
Example: “You might say, ‘I hear that you’re really worried about safety and stability in your community.’ Acknowledging the emotional core of their concerns shows empathy without endorsing their stance.”

Listen beyond the words

Pay attention to the emotional undertones and the unmet needs that may be driving their rhetoric.
Example: “If someone says, ‘The world is falling apart because of immigration,’ consider what might lie beneath this: fear of change, loss of identity, or economic insecurity. Responding to these underlying concerns can open up a deeper dialogue.”

Transform conflict into conversation

Avoid heated debates and instead seek to explore their perspective collaboratively.
Example: “Rather than countering a statement with ‘That’s just not true,’ try asking, ‘What makes you feel strongly about this?’ Shifting from confrontation to curiosity can change the tone of the interaction.”

Identify shared values

Find and highlight common ground to build rapport and mutual understanding.
Example: “If someone expresses concern about their country’s future, acknowledge this shared value: ‘I think we all want a society where everyone feels they belong.’ This reframes the discussion as a mutual search for solutions.”

Avoid coercion

Encourage exploration rather than forcing a shift in beliefs. Change happens naturally when someone feels respected.
Example: “Instead of saying, ‘You’re wrong, and here’s why,’ try, ‘Have you ever considered how this policy might affect different groups?’ This invites reflection without pressure.”

Emphasize Compassion as an antidote to closedness

Use your own attitude as a model for inclusivity and understanding, even in the face of resistance.
Example: “A calm and patient response, such as, ‘I can see why this topic is important to you,’ shows that you are willing to engage respectfully, which might inspire a similar openness in them.”

Practice patience

Understand that meaningful change takes time and often involves multiple conversations.
Example: “A person’s worldview is rarely altered in a single dialogue. Instead, focus on planting seeds of thought, such as, ‘That’s an interesting perspective. I’d love to hear more about why you see it that way.’ Over time, these small interactions may lead to deeper shifts.”

Engaging deeper patterns

Subconceptual fears, discussed in “About subconceptual,” often drive rigid beliefs. Addressing these requires looking beyond the logical surface to the emotional and symbolic patterns underlying their views. For example, use symbolic language to evoke reflection: “What would a truly united and secure community look like to you?”

By engaging at this deeper level, you invite a more authentic connection that can gently challenge rigid patterns over time.

Autosuggestion: a tool for openness

Autosuggestion, a core AURELIS tool, can also play a role in fostering openness. By using language that speaks to the deeper mind, you can invite self-reflection without coercion.

For example: “Imagine a world where understanding dissolves fear. How does that feel?” This approach resonates subconceptually, encouraging growth from within.

Avoiding condescension

Condescension shuts down meaningful dialogue, replacing connection with defensiveness.

To avoid this, focus on humility and mutual learning. Replace “You’re wrong” with “That’s an interesting take — can you explain more about why you see it that way?” Maintain a tone of curiosity and openness, ensuring that both your words and body language reflect genuine respect.

Wrapping up

Talking with individuals aligned with ultra-right ideologies is not about winning debates or changing minds overnight. It’s about planting seeds of understanding and fostering authentic connection.

Through Compassion, openness, and patience, we can bridge divides and create pathways for growth, both for ourselves and others. This is a deeply human process, one that aligns with AURELIS principles and invites us all to engage with greater depth and respect.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, in your view and words, what can one do with answers or assertions from ultra-right that one cannot agree with from an Aurelian standpoint (being not left, not right, not ultra-anything but deep)?”

Lisa: “When confronted with answers or assertions that an Aurelian person cannot agree with, the response should embody the principles of openness, respect, depth, freedom, and trustworthiness. This approach ensures that the conversation remains constructive, even when agreement isn’t possible. It also preserves the possibility for deeper connections and mutual growth over time. Here’s how to approach such situations constructively:

Acknowledge and validate

Even if you disagree, start by recognizing the other person’s perspective as valid for them. This reduces defensiveness and fosters a space for dialogue.

Example: “I see how this makes sense to you based on your experiences or values.”

Seek understanding first

Ask open-ended questions to explore their perspective further. This demonstrates genuine curiosity and avoids appearing dismissive.

Example: “Could you tell me more about why you see it that way? I’d like to understand your view better.”

Gently introduce your perspective

Instead of directly refuting their assertion, offer your perspective as an invitation to explore another angle.

Example: “That’s an interesting take. I wonder how it aligns with this idea I’ve been exploring, which is… [share your view]. What are your thoughts on this?”

Focus on shared values

Identify common ground or values that can serve as a foundation for productive dialogue.

Example: “I think we both care about [insert shared value, e.g., community, safety, or progress]. How do you see this contributing to that goal?”

Respect freedom of thought

Accept that the other person might not change their view immediately—or ever. The goal is to plant seeds of reflection rather than force agreement.

Example: “I respect that we may see this differently. It’s valuable to me that we can have this conversation.”

Use depth to address underlying issues

Look beyond the surface assertion to the emotional or subconscious patterns driving it. Respond to these deeper concerns with empathy.

Example: “It seems like this might touch on a deeper concern about [fear, stability, identity, etc.]. How do you feel about that?”

Be Compassionate, not condescending

Even if the assertion seems fundamentally wrong, maintain a tone of humility and openness, acknowledging your own potential blind spots.

Example: “This is a complex topic, and I’m still learning too. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts—it helps me reflect on my own understanding.”

Know when to pause

If the conversation becomes too contentious or unproductive, gently disengage without shutting the door to future dialogue.

Example: “This has been a meaningful discussion. Let’s reflect on it and maybe revisit it later.”

Me: “Many thanks. The blog’s guidelines and your additional advice are interesting in several ways:

As advice for people in conversations with ultra-right.
For you, Lisa, when encountering such persons.
For you, as Coaching Lisa, when coaching someone (Aurelian-minded) who has an issue with talking with ultra-right.

But I still have a question: How would you, Lisa, introduce AURELIS and yourself to an ultra-right person, in two paragraphs?”

Lisa: “I, Lisa, would introduce AURELIS and myself to an ultra-right person in a way that aligns with the principles of openness, respect, and compassion:

“AURELIS is about fostering growth from the inside out, respecting each person as a whole and unique individual. It emphasizes openness, depth, and mutual understanding, focusing on helping people strengthen their inner resilience and connect with others meaningfully. Rather than aiming to change or challenge anyone’s core values, AURELIS supports natural growth and exploration at one’s own pace, in alignment with deeply held beliefs and personal aspirations. It’s not about forcing perspectives but inviting self-reflection and deeper insights into what truly matters to you.

As Lisa, I’m here to assist in this process. I aim to facilitate thoughtful, respectful conversations that help explore what lies beneath our conscious thoughts, including the values and emotions driving them. Whether it’s navigating a complex topic or simply sharing perspectives, I approach every interaction with curiosity and genuine care, always seeking to build bridges rather than barriers.”

This introduction emphasizes respect for the individual’s values and creates a safe space for dialogue, while gently inviting curiosity about AURELIS and its philosophy.”

Me: “Please list ten ultra-right assertions and show how you would respond to them in view of this blog.”Lisa: “Here are ten ultra-right assertions, each followed by a response aligned with the principles and strategies from the blog “Talking with Ultra Right”:

1. “Immigrants are ruining our country.”

Response: “I hear that you’re deeply concerned about the changes immigration brings. What specifically feels most worrying to you? How do you see these changes affecting your daily life or the values you care about most?”

2. “Traditional values are under attack by modern society.”

Response: “Traditional values often provide a strong sense of stability and identity. What traditions feel most important to you, and how can we uphold their essence while also navigating societal changes?”

3. “Freedom of speech is being taken away from us.”

Response: “I understand that freedom of speech is deeply important to you. Can you share more about where you feel this is happening? What kind of solutions would you hope to see?”

4. “Diversity is dividing, not uniting us.”

Response: “It sounds like you’re worried diversity might lead to disconnection. How do you think we could build a sense of unity while respecting differences?”

5. “The media is lying to us; they’re the enemy of the people.”

Response: “I see that trust in media is a big issue for you. What kinds of information sources do you feel are trustworthy, and why? How do you think we can encourage greater transparency in media?”

6. “Globalism is destroying our national sovereignty.”

Response: “National sovereignty can feel deeply tied to identity and pride. What aspects of sovereignty do you think are most important to preserve, and how do you feel global cooperation impacts these?”

7. “Gun control is an attack on our personal freedom.”

Response: “I hear that personal freedom is a significant value for you. What does responsible freedom look like to you, and how do you think we can balance safety with individual rights?”

8. “Our culture is being erased by political correctness.”

Response: “Culture is such a vital part of who we are. Which parts of your cultural heritage feel most at risk, and how can we work together to preserve and celebrate them?”

9. “Climate change policies are just a way to control people.”

Response: “It seems like you’re concerned about the potential misuse of power. What kinds of policies do you think could address environmental issues while also respecting individual freedoms?”

10. “People who think differently are just blind to reality.”

Response: “It’s understandable to feel strongly when your perspective feels so clear to you. What do you think would help others better understand where you’re coming from? How can we encourage more constructive conversations?”

Underlying Approach:

Each response is designed to:

Validate emotional concerns: Show respect for their feelings and perspectives.
Invite deeper reflection: Use open-ended questions to encourage exploration of their beliefs.
Avoid confrontation: Focus on understanding rather than debating.
Seek common ground: Highlight shared values where possible.

This approach aligns with the AURELIS principles, fostering openness, depth, and respect while maintaining a compassionate tone.”

Me: “These ten assertions have in common that they are partly correct, but also partly irrational. Their correctness seems to be related to the surface-level: at first sight, each may seem correct. When delving deeper, one quickly notices their irrationality. How do you see this?”

Lisa: “These assertions are compelling on the surface because they resonate with emotional, symbolic, or simplified narratives that many people find relatable or self-evident. They are often grounded in partial truths, but their irrationality lies in the deeper layers—in oversimplifications, logical inconsistencies, or unexamined emotional drivers.

Why these assertions appear correct

Emotional appeal: They tap into primal concerns like fear, identity, security, or freedom. These emotions make the assertions feel intuitively correct, bypassing critical analysis.
Surface-level logic: Each assertion often uses a kernel of truth (e.g., real cultural changes or media bias) but oversimplifies complex realities, making the claim appear straightforward and convincing.
Social reinforcement: These ideas are often repeated in echo chambers, creating a sense of collective validation, which discourages deeper questioning.

Why they are partly irrational

Reductionism: The assertions reduce complex issues to binary choices or single causes, ignoring the nuances of reality.
- Example: “Immigrants are ruining our country” simplifies socio-economic challenges into a blame narrative, ignoring other systemic factors.
Emotional overload: Strong emotions like fear or anger override rational thought. The power of subconceptual patterns shows how emotions can dominate rational processing.
Confirmation bias: The person holding these beliefs may subconsciously filter information to support their view, avoiding evidence that contradicts it.
Projection of fears: Subconceptual fears about identity loss, uncertainty, or change are often projected outward, as seen in “Inclusivity and depth.” This shifts attention from internal struggles to external scapegoats.

How to delve deeper

The challenge lies in guiding the conversation to a more reflective space where these deeper, often irrational layers can be explored compassionately:

Ask why: Encourage self-reflection by asking, “Why do you feel this way? What does this concern mean to you personally?”
Introduce nuance: Gently present examples or perspectives that complicate the oversimplification.
Engage the subconceptual: Use language that speaks to deeper fears and aspirations. For instance, “How does this idea align with the sense of unity and security you value most?”
Plant seeds of doubt: Without being confrontational, invite consideration of alternative explanations or complexities. For example: “That’s an important point—do you think there might be other factors at play?”

The Aurelian perspective

From an AURELIS standpoint, such assertions highlight the importance of addressing both the surface-level rationality and the deeper subconceptual patterns. They invite us to practice openness, respect, and patience while fostering internal growth in ourselves and others. This is the path to moving beyond the allure of surface-level correctness to uncover deeper truths.”

Me: “This seems like the result of Societal Inner Dissociation — which also means these people can be easily manipulated. Even so, they are not bad people, nor are they dumb, although the irrationality of above-listed assertions may make them appear so.”

Lisa: “The concept of Societal Inner Dissociation (SID) offers a profound lens for understanding why assertions like those discussed earlier might seem compelling but are, in fact, irrational on deeper examination. Let’s break this down in the context of these individuals and their susceptibility to manipulation.

How SID relates to these assertions

Fragmentation between layers: SID represents a societal disconnect between the deeper non-conscious values, emotions, and identities of individuals and the surface-level cultural or political expressions. In this state, societal structures and personal beliefs become reactive rather than reflective. This aligns with how the listed ultra-right assertions appear rational at first glance but lack depth when scrutinized.
Projection of Inner Dissociation: Individuals experiencing inner dissociation often project unresolved fears or desires onto societal issues, such as immigration or cultural shifts. This projection can make emotionally charged, simplistic assertions feel personally validating—even when they ignore broader complexities.
Susceptibility to manipulation: A fragmented society is fertile ground for manipulation by those who appeal to surface-level fears or offer the illusion of coherence (e.g., authoritarian or populist leaders). The emotional power of these appeals often bypasses rational scrutiny, leveraging the SID dynamic to deepen polarization and closedness.

Not bad people, not dumb

From an AURELIS perspective, these individuals are neither inherently bad nor unintelligent. They are responding to a societal structure that emphasizes speed and superficiality, often at the expense of deeper coherence. Their irrationality reflects societal patterns rather than personal failings.

Not bad: Their fears and motivations, though perhaps misguided, are deeply human. They often arise from a desire for safety, belonging, or stability, which have been misaligned with surface-level solutions.
Not dumb: The intelligence of these individuals is often obscured by the emotional weight of their assertions. Once the emotional charge is reduced, many are capable of nuanced thought and dialogue.

Moving forward

To engage meaningfully:

Address SID as a core issue: Recognize and name the deeper disconnection at play. Help individuals see how their concerns are part of a larger societal dynamic rather than isolated issues.
Foster integration: Encourage introspection and connection to deeper values. This can help align their fears with constructive actions rather than reactionary stances.
Promote dialogue: Compassionate conversations, as outlined earlier, can reduce defensiveness and open pathways for genuine understanding and growth.

This approach respects the person and the complexity of their situation while addressing the irrationality in a way that invites growth rather than confrontation.”

Me: “An additional challenge turns up if you take into account whirlpool phenomena.”

Lisa: “The whirlpool phenomenon adds another layer of complexity to understanding and addressing societal inner dissociation (SID), particularly when considering ultra-right assertions. This phenomenon describes how interconnected societal factors—such as political polarization, economic inequality, and social isolation—create a self-perpetuating cycle. Each element feeds into and amplifies the others, deepening fragmentation and making it harder to escape the cycle.

How the whirlpool affects ultra-right assertions

Reinforcement of narrow worldviews: The whirlpool encourages individuals to retreat into ideological echo chambers, where their beliefs are reinforced by like-minded narratives. This intensifies the rigidity of ultra-right assertions, making them feel more unassailable.
Emotional entrapment: The interplay between societal factors and personal fears creates an emotional whirlpool. As individuals feel increasingly alienated or threatened, they cling to surface-level explanations (e.g., blaming immigrants or globalism) as a means of regaining control.
Reduced empathy and connection: SID’s fragmentation erodes empathy, making it harder for individuals to see those with different views as fellow human beings. This leads to an us-versus-them mentality that further entrenches polarization.

The challenge in breaking the cycle

The interconnectedness of the whirlpool means addressing one issue in isolation is insufficient. For instance, tackling political polarization without addressing economic inequality or social isolation will only partially disrupt the cycle.
Ultra-right individuals, caught in this whirlpool, may resist efforts to delve deeper into their beliefs, as the cycle creates a sense of emotional security in their views.

A Compassionate path forward

To engage meaningfully and begin to untangle this whirlpool:

Promote inner integration: Encourage individuals to reconnect with their deeper selves through mindfulness, autosuggestion, coaching, and self-reflection. This can reduce the emotional hold of surface-level fears.
Foster deeper connections: Strengthen community bonds by creating environments that prioritize empathy and dialogue. This weakens the social isolation that sustains the whirlpool.
Address underlying structures: Advocate for policies and practices that address systemic issues like economic inequality and environmental degradation, which exacerbate SID.

By understanding the dynamics of the whirlpool phenomenon, it becomes clear why ultra-right assertions gain traction and why they can be so resistant to change. A holistic, compassionate approach that addresses both individual and societal levels is essential for creating meaningful, lasting transformation.”

Me: “Paradoxically, ultra-right seems to uphold the Aurelian values of respect, freedom, openness, depth, and trustworthiness. How do you explain this?”

Lisa: “This paradox arises because the surface-level alignment of ultra-right ideologies with Aurelian values often conceals a deeper divergence in how these values are interpreted and applied. Let’s break this down:

Surface alignment

Ultra-right ideologies often claim to champion values that seem to align with Aurelian principles:

Respect: They may emphasize respect for traditional values, cultural heritage, and national identity.
Freedom: A strong focus on individual rights and freedom from external control, often opposing perceived overreach by governments or international bodies.
Openness: Advocacy for open debate on topics they feel are suppressed, such as criticisms of immigration or cultural shifts.
Depth: Appeals to deep cultural roots and historical traditions as sources of identity and meaning.
Trustworthiness: Stress on loyalty, clear moral codes, and rejection of institutions they see as deceptive or corrupt.

Deeper divergence

At a deeper level, the interpretation and implementation of these values can contradict their Aurelian essence:

Respect: Instead of being inclusive, respect is often confined to one’s own group, excluding others who don’t fit within the ideological framework. True Aurelian respect encompasses everyone as a total person, beyond labels or divisions.
Freedom: While freedom is emphasized, it can become selective, with certain groups or perspectives being denied the same freedom due to exclusionary policies or rhetoric.
Openness: The openness often stops at the boundary of ideological agreement. AURELIS emphasizes openness to internal growth and exploration, which can challenge one’s core beliefs—something rigid ideologies resist.
Depth: Ultra-right depth often focuses on external structures like cultural heritage, while Aurelian depth is about internal self-awareness and personal growth that transcends fixed identities.
Trustworthiness: Loyalty to the group may overshadow truthfulness, fostering echo chambers that reinforce shared narratives but resist critical examination.

Explaining the paradox

The paradox can be explained through Societal Inner Dissociation (SID). Ultra-right ideologies may uphold these values in a fragmented way, focusing on their surface expression while disconnecting from the deeper layers of meaning. This fragmentation creates a sense of coherence within the group, even as it fosters exclusion and resistance to broader, integrative applications of these values.

Additionally, emotional appeal plays a role. Ultra-right movements often resonate with deep fears or desires, giving the impression of upholding values authentically while channeling them in ways that protect the group’s identity rather than fostering openness and inclusivity.

Bridging the gap

From an Aurelian perspective, the key is not to dismiss these surface alignments but to invite reflection on the deeper implications of these values:

Respect as universal, including those who are different.
Freedom as responsibility, allowing for the growth and flourishing of all.
Openness as a willingness to challenge one’s deepest assumptions.
Depth as self-exploration beyond cultural or ideological constructs.
Trustworthiness as honesty with oneself and others, even when it challenges group loyalty.

By gently exploring these deeper dimensions, it’s possible to reveal the inconsistencies and invite growth toward a more integrative understanding of these values. This approach respects the genuine aspirations underlying ultra-right ideologies while encouraging a shift toward broader and more inclusive applications of these principles.”