In Defense of Ideology and the Ideologue—

So many of the ‘progressive’, or the intellegencia of modernity of science and reason, have recoiled, and then begun stringent defense, in a shocked frenzy, when presented with the concept of an ideologically governed society. They respond with a gasp of horror and incredulity that any person would be foolish enough to govern anything with something as dogmatic as an ideology.

Yet for all this hype they go on in the delusion, and it is a very serious, albeit an implicit, one, that it’s possible to actually be free of ideology through a strict allegiance to science and logic.

They pretend in their 'world of make-believe' that it’s actually possible to be a ‘realist’ without an all-encompassing, beyond human, grasp on reality. They fail to see that once science, or logic, or ration, are applied to a macro view, of any significance, to the world in a manner that such information rendered as useful and relevant in the context of significant issues, that they go no further toward a correct view than many a dogma heeding religion has ever been. They fail to see that the very dogma that ration and logic and science can ever be successfully applied to humanity to solve, or approach solving, the ills of mankind is one of the worst dogmas that can be held to.

The sheer egotism and narcissistic nature inherent in an IDEOLOGY that holds that man can ever apply science and reason in a sufficient manner to solve more problems than it creates is the most sorry view for it is among the ultimate of contradictions.

It’s an ideology that doesn’t simply hold all other ideologies in scorn it holds itself in a kind of subconscious scorn. Maybe even not even a self-aware scorn.

A house divided…

What then of an ideology divided? One not even willing to come to grips with it’s own existence as an ideology?

Can we say MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN? Can anyone read the writing on the wall?