Ideologues (part 4) The Aggression

So I took the past few days off to handle a few things, but then also to engage with ideologues who’ve been reading the series and who’ve felt eager to humble me, and derail and marginalize the respective posts…

This was actually very beneficial to the series as it laid the proper frame for this particular installment.

I want you to keep in mind that what we’re dealing with here is a mode of processing information and reality (the authoritarian mode) that people just happen to be linked into, which is organizing and orchestrating their attitudes, actions, outlooks and behaviors, and then informing their interactions with others, and individual and group values.

At their core, ideologues are fundamentally aggressive people. They have a tendency to weaponize anything they can get their hands on, and then to use said weapons as means to subjugate and exploit others. In the hands of ideologues, ideologies (and subsequently, dogmas, methodologies and dictates from authorities) are weapons to be used towards establishing dominance and moral superiority.

Due to this, ideologues are generally either directly attacking things themselves or cowering off to the side and hoping to feel empowered and emboldened when and if the systems, labels or groups they identify through take up hostile stances against things they perceive as “other”.

Ideologues are attracted to various forms of violence, which include but aren’t limited to physical assault, intimidation, embarrassment and humiliation, pain and suffering, withholding and/or starvation, exclusion, sexual predation, and the list goes on and on…

Ideologues take great pleasure in seeing things made to suffer; that is, they take pleasure in seeing things forced to yield to authority…

This is the basis for the [principle] concept of “punishment”.

In my last series, I spoke of punishment as being a type of addiction, specifically in the sense that people can develop strong dependencies on punishing things and seeing things punished. To punish something is to injure it for the sake of gratification.

The type of people I’m referring to in the punishment series are the ideologues; individuals who process information and reality through the authoritarian mode. The point of punishing, that is, inflicting violence onto others or external values is to establish, exercise or experience feelings of authority over [the] targeted values.

Again, what we’re talking about here is an addiction. The perception of authority triggers the autonomic nervous system to produce high levels of serotonin, which the ego parasite consumes and primarily subsists on. As mentioned on several occasions now, the ego (or what humans call ego) is actually a physical parasite in the human brain, which manifests as a sort of rogue network of chemical receptors primarily concentrated in the frontal lobe regions of the brain, and then, are spread throughout the autonomic nervous system. This is a somewhat cursory overview, but for all intents and purposes accurate nonetheless…

In short, perceptions of and/or related to authority, and then, the imposition of authority onto external values are physically addictive phenomena. In my work I refer to these phenomena as “conceptual substances”…

So basically, ideologues are drug addicts — they’re like crackheads. They’re addicted to pursuing and attempting to establish authority; more often than not, by/through punishing things. They’re constantly seeking to satisfy their appetites for authority, in either direct or sympathetic forms and ways.

This addiction (like all addictions) makes them (ideologues) fundamentally aggressive individuals.

Yo…

There’s this famous scene in Good Will Hunting, wherein an ideologue attempts to humiliate Ben Affleck’s character, for literally no reason whatsoever. It’s the Bar Scene — I’m sure you all know it very well (if not, I’ll post a link beneath this). But here’s this guy (Affleck’s character) trying to ‘bust a move on some hotties at the end of the bar’, when out of nowhere this asshole with a ponytail starts trying to humiliate him (Ben), for the asshole’s own sense of amusement and satisfaction.

What was the asshole trying to accomplish? He was trying to establish authority. How did he attempt to do it? By trying to weaponize, that is, pawn off third-party discovery, perspectives and determinations as his own unique perspective. In other words, he tried to establish authority by appealing to authority; he tried to use someone else’s authority (by way of credential, achieved through scholarship, study, investigation and critical analysis) as his own legitimate perspective and platform to speak from. And fueled by status beliefs, he thought he’d get away with it — that is, until Will, a real legit and authentic perspective showed up, and demonstrated how fundamentally lacking this asshole was in the ways of reasoning, honesty, capability, bravery and the list goes on.

And I realize this was just a movie scene, but it is the perfect analogy of/for the ideologue…

The thing to question most about that scene (for me at least) is ‘what compelled that asshole to approach them to begin with?’

Because see… that’s the exact same phenomenon that inspires ideologues in general — specifically those we see on the internet, who run around trying to police people and ‘injure things with their contempt’ every single day. That ponytailed asshole was literally no different than jackasses who experience feelings of power from giving thumbs down(s) to videos and comments on Youtube, and leaving berating comments themselves. Its the same thing that makes jackasses on Facebook feel qualified to talk over and derail and marginalize other people’s experiences, thoughts, views, perspectives and ideas.

This desire to injure things… this desire to humiliate, devalue and impose (perceived) ‘suffering’ onto things, so as to establish or experience feelings of authority, is a system-wide phenomenon.

And the only type of people who actively engage in this type of behavior are ideologues. They’re literally thinking and behaving like drug addicts; just itching for the next high, and constantly looking to engage in or witness some form of violence being carried out against others; some act of or transaction related to making external values yield to [their] authority.

Here are some of the different ways in which ideologues are aggressive towards others:

Trying to “convert somebody” to a way or system of thinking is necessarily an act of aggression.

Trying to “correct someone” is necessarily an act of aggression.

Trying to “humiliate someone” is obviously an act of aggression.

Trying to “censor or silence someone” is obviously an act of aggression.

Trying to “strike someone” is ABSOLUTELY an act of aggression.

Trying to “suppress reality and all things that disagree with or don’t edify self” is necessarily an act of aggression.

Trying to “alter things” so that they’re convenient to self, group or ideology (at the expense of others) is necessarily an act of aggression.

Hoping to “see things injured” because they don’t agree with or edify self (or one’s view of authority) is necessarily an outlook of aggression.

Ideologues are fundamentally aggressive people. Addicts are fundamentally aggressive people. Ideologues are authority addicts. And this is not an equivocation, its a direct correlation…

Interesting note:

Ideologues are typically huge sports fans. Why? Because sports are contests and competitions for authority. Ideologues are wildly consumed by image, status beliefs and reputation. Why? Because image, status and reputation represent and/or effectively translate into social authority. Ideologues typically idealize, defend and then seek to excel within institutions and fraternal orders. Why? Because established systems of modal thinking and stratifications systems therein are all about acquiring and exercising authority.

Any attempt to establish authority is necessarily an act of aggression. And try not to view this statement in moralistic or authoritative terms; as establishing authority isn’t and can’t considerably ALWAYS BE good or bad, right or wrong — but it is an act of aggression nonetheless.

When dealing with ideologues, sometimes establishing authority is the only viable option, as their addictions to authority, if left unchecked, will or would consume and destroy everything, in their attempt to self-actualize.

Ideologues are wildly aggressive individuals. And when and if the groups, labels or ideologies they seek to define themselves by don’t have external enemies or threats to collectivize against, they’ll faction off, and then turn on and destroy their own groups and ideologies from within; as they’re not motivated towards anything by unity and a desire for growth and betterment, but instead, are motivated towards reality and all things primarily by way of aggression.