Ideological Indoctrination

Hindu-Tamil (ॐ) depiction of
Mariamman (மாரியம்மன்)

Political Indoctrination |
Wednesday – March 25, 2026

Political Indoctrination is a prerequisite in everything that requires the active engagement of the masses, and while this applies in particular to democracy, you would surely be hard pressed to find any other kind of engagement outside the officially established democracies, and this is perhaps best understood by the fact that most regimes around the world that clearly do not qualify as democracies still rely on that label or pretense, and whatever the case it is clearer still that such regimes while not being democratic in the formal sense still relies heavily upon the movement in on or the other direction of the masses. Indeed, it is even more clear that this kind of "zero sum" mentality is an inherent feature of democracy: either you are with me or you are against men, and surely most people cannot be against democracy? But political indoctrination requires much more than a zero sum mentality, for the meta political outlook of the average person is conservative; yes, you may say that the "default", the political default, is conservatism, here "conservatism" must be understood in the full sense of the word, so I am referring to conservatism with a small "c". This small "c" conservatism simply alludes to the fact that most people are rather skeptical of abrupt change, even if this change promises some kind of material improvement, because the essential insight that most men, even the most depraved, possess is, perhaps what should could be referred to as the fundamental axiom of conservatism, the insight that it is quite often much easier to break something than to construct something or to improve something, and really that improvements only arise through a painful trial and error, and really some would refer to this as commonsense, if that term should be labeled in any kind of meaningful application. Of course, it should be understood that to be ideological is to be anti-commonsense, thus it requires, in a corporeal sense, a lot of energy and really a lot of effort to believe in the grand narratives and the promises of ideology, but ideology also requires the ability to tune out anything counter ideological, and in a sense it would be quite right to conceive of ideologies as cults. Yes, most politicians are members of cults or sects, and usually they have an ability to find an ideological explanation and justification for just about anything, and in this regard at least two things become clear: ideologies are, perhaps as expected, extensions of the modern mentality of quantification and the substantive modality; and ideologies are something quite individual, and really ideologies are governed by the sense of personal preference to the point that the raison d'être for any ideology is the momentary and material justification for a particular interest, and this is also why so many ideologies never survive the test of time, but this is of course no problem to the moderns. It is believed by most proponents of any given ideology that they, the proponents, belong to a certain and "qualified" group of people able to guide the development of modernity, and this is also why ideology is something distinctly modern, especially in its contradictions, with the profane sciences. If the collective of profane science claims negativism and the impossibility of the "ultra-sensual", then ideology is quite different in this regard: ideology claims dominion over knowledge itself and from this dominion, the entirety of the material substance is derived, this is of course philosophy as understood by the moderns, and these people seem unshakable in their "belief" that the future of the ideological utopia (the terrestrial paradise) is inevitable, even to the point of proclaiming the end of history.

    This all is of course understandable when you consider the fundamental modality of the moderns: if everyone is without essence, without form and feature, then humanity itself should be treated as an enormous calculation, where each individual constitutes the fundamental unit of measurement and money becomes the fundamental reference point, and within this enormous equation it seems quite reasonable to engage in all sorts of simplifications, to the point of complete erasure of anything that may not be described in its entirety as something substantive. Modern men have discovered the fidelity of their own intentions, and as such they have essentially proclaimed themselves God, read "The Hubris of Modern Man". Political indoctrination is not so much an intent rather than a necessity, a prerequisite as I previously stated, something that binds the material conception of the world together into something not unifying but rectifying and uniform, something that enables the penetration of the infra human modality to become evermore narrow and specialized. The result of all this is of course the contemporary world: chaos and uncertainty. The humanist assumption is always that everything that may not be controlled or influenced by the individual is something that constitutes an oppression, and the progressive mentality is the further assumption that by a linear approximation the world may be best understood and that the world develops and "evolves" and proceeds from these fundamentally oppressive principles, and that a more perfect world can be achieved as a function of this continual progression towards the final liberation.

    Would not totalizing indoctrination be necessary for a man to believe in these fantastical claims, in all these illusions and Utopian grand narratives? Indeed, the only problem being that most men are conservative as a default and must be made to become ideological; most men, according the the revolutionary elite, have to be "enlightened" and made aware of the existentialism of the world and the fact that action has to be exercised upon this existentialism, for anything that remains unknowable to the unqualified, anything that remains essentially principled and anchored has to be turned inside and out until that thing can be understood and described, really until the substantive mass of the entirety of the creation can be mechanically deduced, described, and understood by the lowest and least qualified elements, truly something anti-hierarchical, thus impossible. Yes, you may call this a "theory of everything" if you will: a theory that can cater to all materialism(s) imaginable, truly an algorithm of unyielding fantasy, the limitless substance and the liberator of the oppressed, the final solution to the human condition – such is the nature of ideology.

Reginald Drax – March 25, 2026.