Why all ideologists are liars

"He wore his heart on his sleeve." is an idiom that refers to somebody openly displaying emotions. This is a faulty idiom. When somebody wears his heart on his sleeve, he doesn't wear it in his chest. Similarly, people who wear their hearts in their chests may take out their hearts and display what's in their chest, but the display in itself is a moment where the heart is not in ones chest. Deliberately displaying emotions is not something that you do with the emotion in question, but with rationality bent on manipulation.

The same goes for political ideologies. A man who proudly says he stands to something, wears his ideology on his sleeve, as a suit instead of as a way of life. A man who puts his ideology down in political posts he writes in forums, doesn't carry it with him in daily life.

The same goes for somebody who identifies himself with an ideology. The more ideological he believes himself to be, the less he actually is. Usually this results in him excusing his actual behavior with scapegoating the opposing side as being far more extreme and despicable than he is being.

This is why all ideologists are liars, both to themselves and to others.

You might protest this loudly, and even grow genuinely agitated, but my mind is already made up. I'm simply stating what I've already learned.

>>>
The same goes for political ideologies. A man who proudly says he stands to something, wears his ideology on his sleeve, as a suit instead of as a way of life. A man who puts his ideology down in political posts he writes in forums, doesn't carry it with him in daily life.



but how is posting on anon forums wearing yuour ideology on your sleeve?

>>2
Because it's expressing an opinion instead of acting upon it. When you're posting here, saying that things should be in a certain way, then that's what you think makes you a supporter of that cause, meaning that you think your work is done. After you've submitted the post about a green environment, you'll get back to your job running a power plant.

You can do both: act AND express your opinion so that others may follow. Ya know, like almost all successful leaders in history.

>>4
Name ONE successful leader who spent his time writing a lot of books instead of ruling the country, and I will call him a hypocrite. Stalin and Lenin wrote down a lot of ideas about the perfect society, so that these ideas were exorcised to their books while they ruled in the completely opposite direction.

>>3
You're making a lot of assumptions about people you've never met,op.

>>6
This goes beyond assumption based on experience. It's how expression works: Expressing an idea takes time, effort and ambition - three things which are limited for everybody - and you can either express the idea as promotion OR express it as actual conduct, and the more time, effort and ambition that you devote to one of them, the more you have left for the other. If you spend your time telling everybody what to do, then you have nothing left when it comes to what to do yourself. People against violence against women, are themselves the biggest wife beaters, without even realizing it, because they "have that base covered already".

An ideology that's anti ideology?

>>8
Well, at least an ideology that's anti-"pushing ideologies on other people".

Obama made the same anti-ideological argument recently while ignoring his own ideological bullshit history. I hope you see the ultimate flaw in this way of thinking.

>>10
Yeah: He's an american.
(If you get to use vague words such as "ideological bullshit history" I get to vaguely hate americans.)

Generally ideologies rely on people spreading the ideology, the idea being if everyone is a communist or a fascist or whatever then new things will be possible. So it's not really a lie or hypocrasy in that respect.

>>10
People shouldn't have to point out the obvious ideological bullshit. A detailed report on Obama's ideological bullshit history wan't the issue. Ideological bullshit history speaks for itself and isn't afraid of anything.

>>12
What failure of an ideology would need people to brainwash people into it in the first place? If everybody has to be MADE agree that everything's fine in a certain way, then what's so special about that way?

Building a group of people that support a specific ideology is necessary to ever have that ideology implemented. You can build up this group by writing or action or brainwashing or however you want to go about doing it. All ideologies have to have some sort of persuasion going on to work and spread and eventually be implemented, and there are times when writing will do more good (or at least less harm) in spreading an ideology than direct action will.