Ideology steals your mental independence

everyday_socialism

Few consider how much ideology serves as a substitute for reality because, in their view, reality is a physical thing and ideology consists of choices made about how “we” should correct reality. In that however is a germ of truth: ideology inevitably requires deposing what is natural, logical and true for what is emotionally satisfying.

Ideology also replaces reality by placing itself between the world and our knowledge of it. To be correct in reality, you act so that the outcome you intend occurs; to be correct in ideology, you act in such a way that you do not transgress that ideology. This means that every action you take is filtered by a desire to conform, before you even act, and that you are granted permission to act in any way that you can get away with by justifying your intentions with the ideology.

This means that whenever a question of how a proposed action will work out, we do not think in terms of how it will actually turn out. We think about how it looks when we tell others what we intend, and how that reflects on us, and whether it will please the group. Witness this mentality in action:

When someone says a refugee might be a terrorist, we can respond with the idea that yes, he/she might be trying to sneak in to Canada to do some harm. But that same person might be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, or have any other number of useful skills. Someone might even be a social worker who’s already found the solution to chronic homelessness in rural and remote communities. We don’t know. These refugees could be the perfect fit for our community. But we won’t know till we let them in.

Two interesting points arise from this excerpt. First, the writer argues that we must act as if ideology is true regardless of the outcome. Second, the writer demands that we ignore secondary consequences, affirming that the true decision is what to say and not outcome in reality. Result: complete denial of fact and likely consequences in favor of looking good in the moment.

This is how ideology programs our brains to replace reality with this strange world of human intent, social pressures and appearances. This also has the effect of reframing the debate. A sensible person might ask, “What kind of society do we want to be?” and point out that heterogenous societies have throughout history consistently suffered more problems, internal division and eventual collapse to a third-world state.

But none of that is mentioned here. The only topic is applying ideology, and the only measurement is what other people think. This is conformity and control in their raw form, but no one is to blame but the social group. Without strong leaders to point back toward reality, people always retreat into their own minds and emotions, and when given power, reality replacement — and its dire consequences — is the inevitable result.

Published by

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens has written about realism since the late 1980s. His work can be found at RightOn, American Renaissance, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and Aristokratia.

17 thoughts on “Ideology steals your mental independence”

  1. I’m glad you found a suitable use for that little gem from our local island newsrag.

    Yes. It’s true. You could never make it up.
    Where I live, this crap is the prevailing attitude. My wife and I speak to nobody, any more, unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
    Fortunately we are OK with this, but for others not so disposed, it’s gotta be hell.

    Good essay.

    1. My wife and I speak to nobody, any more, unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

      Soviet times. I am seeing a lot more of this: people are very careful to avoid any engagement that is not merely transactional because most people are either crazy or crazed with this kind of ideological nonsense. It makes them dangerous, because all of us are a means to the end of their ideology being validated.

      Seems like a lovely island however.

  2. Your best article yet. Short and sweet.

    “When someone says a refugee might be a terrorist, we can respond with the idea that yes, he/she might be trying to sneak in to Canada to do some harm. But that same person might be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, or have any other number of useful skills.”

    It would be easy enough to find out if they are a doctor, engineer, etc. Anyone who would make such a statement in an attempt to convince us of the goodness of welcoming all & any migrants from anywhere has to have schit for brains or worse. More like plutonium. They are walking “dirty bombs” and the radioactivity is distributed whenever they open their pie holes.

    Not saying migrants should be allowed in just because they are professionals. We are way, way better off returning to a neolithic way of life if that’s what it takes to make us homogeneous.

    1. I get your meaning, but if you start talking about a greater need for homogeniety in a particular nation, then the obvious question is how homogenous is enough, and which group gets to define the parameters of that. As well as where all of the non-conforming people are expected to go, and what would be done with those that refuse. Those messy questions have to be faced.

      Don’t assume that it will be your group that gets to decide, especially if it’s on the verge of becoming one minority amongst many (think Zimbabwe or South Africa). Nor should you welcome the sort of strife that accompanied the re-segregation of historically antethetical groups in places like post-2003 Iraq.

      1. I think you answered your own question there: if there are many small groups, there will always be problems. Thus the solution is to separate them. In Europe, this means by national identity/heritage; in America, by the American Nativist (i.e. Western European) measurement.

        1. Harry, Brett, anyone:

          It is fun to talk about what “we” would do – as if some All Powerful Deity will call us to the great multicultural table and ask us for our opinions. LOL!

          Things are sliding downhill fast. There will be multiple overwhelming calamities. When the dust has settled, things will proceed as they must. I doubt that whoever is running things by force will seek my opinion first.

          1. When the dust has settled, things will proceed as they must.

            If we know what we want, unite and that and push for it, we can avoid the collapse or restructure afterward. This is how all political change happens. There are too many excuses for inaction and fatalism is the most common.

            1. What you say is usually correct, but the situation is different this time. It’s different because of globalism being the order of the day in all things. It’s different because of widespread biological degeneration, especially of white people. It is different because of how terribly dependent we are on technology.

              Our ancestors were tough as nails, most of them. They survived the Dirty 30s because of their physical strength, good health and character. And ability to grow their food, most of it, and foraging and hunting for what they could not. Not any more.

              Ask anyone if he would gladly live in exactly the kind of traditionalist/conservative society he’s been aching for but in return there would be no high tech modern medicine, drugs, operations, etc. Medicine would be at the level of, say, 10 generations ago (to be generous) and the prime form would be simple self-care based on traditional practices. As humanity has done for 100,000 years.

              I dare say most folks, including “conservatives” would go screaming back to our demented present situation so long as he has his precious medical doctors and hospitals just waiting to take “care” of his symptoms.

              We cannot have it both ways.

              Your body is you. Maintain your health on your own steam and the world is yours.

              1. Traditionalist does not mean an abandonment of technology; that’s primitivism.

                The point is how power structures are arbitrated and how the society is organized. Tradition is a transcendental goal and hierarchy.

                I agree that staying healthy is a better option than relying on doctors however. Magic solutions are almost always too good to be true.

                1. It all comes down to, HOW MUCH technology? Technology isn’t inherently bad; why, a chimp using a stick to poke ants in ant hills is using technology.

                  Spiritually ill people want more and more high technology, and pout when their medicaid/free medicare is threatened. These are the ones to watch out for. They may claim an attachment to Reality politics, but wait and see how much discomfort they are willing to withstand in the name of a doable society.

                  Primitivism VS traditionalism. The latter can certainly include the former. At least as far as I can grasp their meanings.

  3. The Act has become so compulsory that if one fails to stay in character every waking moment then they could be looking at some serious property damage or reputation ruination. Sure we got the more observable disciplines mostly figured out, leading to goodies like microwaves and 4K TV’s. Reality, the one that undergirds them all but requires more than a laboratory to quantify, remains a mystery. The sane will at least privately acknowledge the encroachment of hell while the cucked install The Act like a pacemaker to in tense moments dredge up the most isolated events as justification to avoid the reality-borne hassle of challenging decades-old obsolete mental structures:

    “Considering that what I’m seeing from my gated community is only the tippity top of the iceberg, it’s safe to say that our problems are insoluble. The issues are here to stay and, yes, they’re only going to get worse. My new next door neighbor’s source of income seems dubious at best while the ultra-simplistic ethno-exclusive music their friends play when they visit is in diametric opposition to everything I have ever known and loved. Blah blah, blah blah. What about that nice black lady that smiled at me in the park six months ago, huh? What about that?! All this abstract racial envy mumbo jumbo makes it hard to concentrate on my needlepoint. If minorities replace us then I guess it was meant to be. I can clearly see what’s happening but have no intention of damaging my reputation just because a few nutjobs who think they got it all figured out are crying over permanent native population replacement. All we need is more smiling and everything will be fine, it’s just that simple!”

    When a mode of thinking becomes universal and maintains this distinction for multiple centuries, a characterization as callous of any attempts to convince people that we were wrong all along becomes effortless. Although he is in fact trying to do the reader the granddaddy of all favors, they’ll navigate the hell on outta here in a rage of contempt for the author’s perceived lack of compassion after the first sentence of uncucked thought. Perhaps “things are 180 degrees out of whack and extremely unpleasant” would hold the attention for a bit longer but it’s so much more concise to just go ahead and say “we are living in hell.” There is no way to sugarcoat the truth, so they’ll read articles like this and dismiss them as callous when, if anything, the author knowing that a good chunk of them are salvageable is trying to walk on egg shells the best he can considering the girth of said iceberg. As we in a slack-jawed stupor await the potential fruits of patience, to characterize the road ahead as bumpy is a laughable understatement.

    1. Agreed. The illusion is long entrenched; what makes sense is pointing out that it did not bring the joy as a whole that it promised. Yes, there are nice people against the grain, but look at the big picture. Also we must consider relativity: what we have is better than some things, but we are also missing out on others that would be even better.

  4. “What I would propose that we should hope for instead is a world where the vast majority of people live in small tight-knitted communities that produce the essentials for survival for themselves, through hard physical labor. This is the only real solution to the sense of ennui our bourgeois existence produces that I have encountered.”

    Talk about Bobo(Bourgeois Bohème) I suppose you are voting for Bernie Sanders, who will put everyone in the poorhouse

    Stop seeing everything as black…Even Daesh/Isis is more civilized that all countries of 1939…Did you know that Churchill deliberately starved to death 20 million Bengalis during WW II?

    1. Try re-reading that without the inbuilt bias.
      Bias is fine, as long as you understand that you have it, and that it is there.
      It is useful to be able to suspend it when evaluating something from outside your own skull, so that you are able to see it for what it is, before emotionally reacting to what it is not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *