Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

An individual – on another blog – claims those on the social-political Right are “brainwashed” and thus, primed to become radicalized resulting in all of the societal violence, murder and mayhem which we “right-wing wacko’s” perpetrate daily upon the disenfranchised and “saintly” social-political Leftists…

Below is a post which explains the ideas which we – as denizens of this culture (the culture-of-death ) – unconsciously assimilate and synthesize with those things taught by mom and dad (note: mom and dad had been absorbing these ideas, and this worldview, just as grandma, and grandpa, and great grandma, and great grandpa, and… the cultural inversion dates back hundreds of years. The degree of assimilation of the ideas of the dominant culture – which is dynamic and has been moving towards dystopia – increases with each generation as Christendom is systematically leached from our institutions, our rituals, and our souls…). The below post may be a bit recondite (may not be easily understood), but is does a fair job (A book would more exhaustively explain, but we work a 40+ hr a week job,…) of explaining much of what animates most human souls in Western culture – formerly animated by the worldview Christendom; we include this introductory note to explain – simply -what the post argues, viz: Those on the social-political Left have imbibed almost exclusively the dominant worldview; they consequentially are predominantly irrationally disposed; driven by sentiment and urges; they are generally (only) restrained by the positive law (laws of the land), and are gods-unto-themselves. This reflects the principles which they assimilate – nearly unalloyed with any contrary principles – fully from the dominant culture… They are driven – brain-washed – by the dominant cultural view, which is an ideological view… The social-political Right are not immune from the culture, but dispositionally are more resistant to the cultural siren call for self-aggrandizement, self-fulfillment, and self-affirmation; those on the social-political Right – generally – and to varying degrees are more common-sensible and less ideological; most react in opposition to the ideological (by-the-by; the Behavioral “sciences” are proliferated with ideologues adorned in Lab-coats)… Those on the social-political Right are restrained – generally – by objective principles of morality, derived from an objective worldview (legacy Christendom, the Churches still – to varying degrees – promote an objective moral worldview; this counter-balances the dominant culture in the souls of those which gravitate to the Right…). We will not here discuss why some souls are open to the eternal verities which the Churches intone, and others are not; that is another blog-post for another day…


Ideologues and Ideology

We will define ideology as a subjective read of reality – which may consciously, or not – presuppose a prior epistemology (theory of knowledge) to which objective reality is systematically reduced (rendering reality subjective); what follows from this attenuation of reality is particularized and then universalized (it is posited as a system of thought or a characterization of reality; not to be confused, although invariably it is, with reality itself…). What is manifest from such a process is a particular Procrustean bed upon which, and within which, good and evil are then defined; thus ideologues easily deny – as they hold reality to their subjective standard – what people of common-sense take for granted as unquestionably true, good, morally-virtuous, etc.

As we write about ideology, we note that, in part, it is in reaction to those which confusedly intimate* that ideology drives the social-political Right, in a similar fashion as it drives the social-political Left. The social-political Left exists only because of ideology i.e., ideology qua ideology came to be (i.e., exist) through the 17th  Century intellectuals/philosophers a priori doubt (particularly through the influence of Immanuel Kant; such was not Kant’s intent, by any understanding, such was an unintended consequence…) regarding objective reality.

* These would be people those on the social-political Right e.g., Rush Limbaugh; we love Limbaugh!, but ideology does not, and cannot, be reconciled with the social-political Right! i.e., conservatism is not ideological; it is predicated upon objective reality…

We assert that those of social-political Right (in particular we reference the social-political Right intellectual and quasi-intellectual) invariably subscribe (consciously, and/or institutionally) to the Perennial Philosophy i.e., metaphysical realism – particularly that of Saint Thomas Aquinas (branded existential realism  by Etienne Gilson) and that that philosophy is the centerpiece to institutions (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church, the originalists reading of the Constitution of the United States, etc.) from which they derive their judgments – thus, those of the social-political Right are the antithesis of ideological! We repeat, their view of the world is grounded in objective reality…

Ideology is actually a corollary (i.e., logically necessary) from the rejection of metaphysical realism; metaphysics must first precede any epistemology in the order of knowing; placing a theory of knowledge prior would attenuate Being, reducing objective reality to a contingency of subjective consciousness ala Kant… We acknowledge that those of the socio-political Right which unconsciously subscribe to the dominant worldview (this would encompass most people of the social-political Right and Left) – while simultaneously embracing their “upbringing” i.e., those values, truths, and goods espoused by remnant institutions of Christendom (the erstwhile dominant culture worldview, which – although moribund and heterodox through synthesis with its antithesis – survives in institutions) are in need of an exegetical (careful philological exposition of their terminology in contrast with the principles of this “culture of death”) language inventory, to awaken themselves, and to free themselves, of what philosophical, theological and moral poison’s from this culture they have assimilated.

Those which embrace, and advocate, the doctrines and policies associated with those which are generally referred to as the social-political Left – whom may or may not be conscious of their a priori presupposed denial/rejection of objective reality i.e., reality intelligently ordered independently of human thought (as per classical epistemology – from such an objective order – all human knowledge is garnered in judgment 1 …); this rejection/denial of the objective order leads its adherents – organically – to universalize their particular sentiments. Now since these individuals, and groups, universalize their subjective views, they generally oppose – irrationally oppose (generally their opposition is of a frenetic strain i.e., their irrationality is anything, but sedate; usually it is quite rabid…) what is good, what is true, and what is moral – suborning most superlative qualities for inveterately malicious (although they would not understand such actions as malice, instead they would/will likely be inclined to think their actions noble…) purposes. The ideologue will generally be inclined to “think” (i.e., to draw inference/s from sentiment) – from their subjective perspective – themselves, their causes and their actions to be good, true and moral… Such individuals are generally prone to characterize those who oppose, or disagree with them in the most derogatory of terms, as they simultaneously eschew any dialectical 2 discussions. Whether avoidance of the dialectic is because they haven’t the ability to defend their positions (Note: it is tough to argue emotion when your opponent dispassionately reasons 3  and presents you with your irresolvable contradictions…), or because they subscribe to Nietzsche’s hectored counsel to avoid the dialectic 4   as involvement in an activity which actually obscures reality (for Nietzsche the dialectic leads one to confuse concepts with reality i.e., reification).

1 Such judgments are “true” judgments when they accord with reality; such judgments require an incessant refusal to ascribe to reality anything from one’s subjective view, thus one must be continuously circumspectly introspective so as to guard against projecting oneself onto that which is…

2 The dialectical method – initially posited by Plato, and employed by Socrates in the dialogues of Plato, has been utilized and refined by other subsequent thinkers – seeks a moral common ground from which to resolve conflicts, and to unveil truths. The employment of the dialectic is not to win one’s point or to surmount one’s opponent; it is rather to advance social/moral comity, and its natural concomitants – the good, the true and the holy/moral….

3  As counseled by Socrates: ‘keeping one’s eye  (mind) fixed upon the prize (i.e., the truth/s to be unveiled).’

4 Nietzsche subscribes to the view that our conception of reality, particularly through rational reflection, is something of a betrayal of creatures which act upon their inclinations, the dialectic leads one – for Nietzsche – reify concepts i.e., treat conceptions of reality as more fundamentally real than reality itself; in some regards Nietzsche seems to think discursive thought to be a sin  and emblematic of the opposition to übermensch

A distinction is to be made between the social-Political Left and the social-Political Right; those of the social-Political Left’s universalized antipathies are logically derived from their systematic – although likely unconscious – distortion of reality. From this systematized-distortion (ideological) of reality, the typical Leftists divides society into groups viz: those which they may utilize to advance their power/interest, by feigning caring for these groups, and group members; and those which they desire to destroyed for having the hardihood of disagreeing with the social-political Left.

In contrast, those which – by reflex – ostensibly pervert reality on the ostensible social-Political Right (incessantly accused of bigotry, racism, sexism and what sundry phobia’s the social-Political Left determine to be efficacious – in painting their opponents – to advance the social/political goals of the social-Political Left) are tethered institutionally to objective reality, and are unfairly characterized for advocating what to them – on the Right – understand as their common-sense personal interest. It should be noted, however that an adherent to the worldview from which the social-political Right derives its advocacies – if individuals are lacking morally virtuous dispositions – allowing their antipathies (vis-à-vis unreflective assimilated antipathy for certain people, places and things) to influence their judgments-as those of social-Political Right are reflexively accused of doing by the socio-political Left; Thus under such conditions these individuals allow for injustice to pervade their souls; to the detriment of themselves and that of the wide-culture.

Thus, we posit the difference between humans – all of us are susceptible to wickedness, all of us are of a fallen nature – of the social-political Right, viz: people fraught with moral weaknesses which are antithetical to the commonweal and a wholesome culture, and those of the social-political Left, who are beset with the same frailties as those on the social-political Right, but additionally the social-political Leftist adherent is under the influence of a weltanschauung which is inherently inimical to the good, the true, the beautiful (corrupting/perverting to all moral superlatives), and a principled enemy of God Himself!

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?