# Ideolgues and their hatred of the societal ramparts we call interactions. ![Look-into-the-future-978x498.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmaBEcBQSMc6auAkyqQ3Rbnb8S5aEHVuGTpQCvvL3y1EUu/Look-into-the-future-978x498.jpg)

> I've had this written up for some time, but have never found the proper place to post it until now. [: Thank you Steemit.

## Simple Social Structuring.

Every individual, regardless of background, all agree to the social contracts within a given society. These contracts are what make up the day to day interactions between individuals on a personable level. They are what I would consider to be the foundation of “peace” between each person/persons, and range in varying degrees on every conscious level. Some of the more basic social contracts consist of things like “I’ll leave you alone if you do the same”, or “I’m not going to harm you as long as you do the same”, and tend to increase in both length and complexity depending on whatever circumstance we’re dissecting. As I said before, I would consider these to be the foundation of peace on a personable level, however there are individuals or groups that have the desire to break apart the metaphorical “strings” of these social contracts in order to gain ideological grounds.

On initial analysis of these individuals or groups, I have observed a phenomena I would call “social subversion”; [that is] the purpose and intent to undermine the fundamentals of social interactions within any given society [so as to shift power to the seemingly “under privileged” (e.g. post-modernist theory, critical theory, Marxist theory, etc…) or to a lesser extent a perceived absolute authority (fascist states, socialist states, totalitarian/authoritarian practices and implementations)]. It would seem that the intent is to create a system that would benefit all “appropriate social classes” equally. This sentiment is one that has held an expression all throughout history, and tends to be the driving force of individuals or groups whose focus is mainly towards a destabilization of socio-economic aspects of a society. It is especially so within the leading world countries today with a hyper focused lens on capitalism; and any relatively parallel system of economy.

This sentiment always confuses me. It shows the individuals or groups expressing it, as never expressing anything other than their desires for a better system suited for equality. Instead however, the expression of the sentiment becomes the goal. The actions towards achieving the outcomes for or towards equality get swept under the bus and forgotten. This leads me to conclude a few things about their motives: that they don’t care about whatever they’re actually expressing, they want power [either social, economic, or political], and possibly more that I’ve yet to uncover.

## The Effects of Undermining.

I don't have to tell most people here how intensely history has shown us how fast-moving groups lay ruin to most societies. But I don't think most individuals are aware of how fast moving most of these ideological frameworks of said groups really are. Take for instance the current politisphere in here in the United States. When we had the progressive liberals start pushing and pushing; remember the phrase "give an inch give a mile", their ideology into every facet of media and politics, we saw a massive shift in the social paradigm. This brought with it the large miasma of post-modern academic works from the "social sciences" that supposedly highlighted the systemic problems within our society. The effects we see from that are people not only disagreeing on fundamental levels, but now they have no other way to express it other than complete censorship, and if necessary they will resort to violence for said censorship.

I'm no psychologist (no doubt), but I can see that the ideological landscape has lead to a battleground for the perceived "correct" route for society. And it is the goals of these ideologically driven zealots to undermine the already functional social atmosphere of whatever society they wish to infest. This definitely goes for any and all subscribers of any [specific] ideological framework.

## A proposition

This will lead into my next post. I have a proposition about how to not only combat this mentality within ourselves, but to help create a method forward and try to work with others. This proposition is to reconstruct your own ideological framework, with an emphasis on not subscribing to other ideological frameworks but instead using them as a tool for understanding.

*Now I know that what I’ve stated seems like it is baseline assertions to be used against any and all oppositions, especially those that I don’t like or care for. However I would argue for anyone to reconsider this, as my goal is to (hopefully) start a dialogue about the events unfolding within current societies, with an emphasis on analyzing ideological frameworks and the language used by subscribers of those frameworks. But for now I want to continue on with the discussions and dialogues, whilst scrutinizing all ideology to some better end.*

>Part 2 will come soon. But as always I thank you for reading. [: