Energy afforded towards meeting same and differing sex family members’ needs as cause of political ideology one adopts or creates

To the extent that a person uses more or less of his or her energy towards meeting the needs of his or her same or differing (“differing”, because the use of the word “opposite” would exclude intersex people) sex family members, he or she will be more or less likely to adopt or create certain kinds of political ideologies. If he or she uses more energy towards meeting the needs of same sex family members, he or she will be “to the right”; if more energy is expended towards meeting the needs of differing sex family members, then the person will be “to the left”.
This is so because the attitudes – even if people’s egos have a remarkable capacity to override such inherent-in-a-person’s-nature attitudes – inherent in same or differing sex family interaction are the things that cause a person to hold more favorably or create and express positions that make up the different political ideologies; when in their political-ideology form they are sublimated positions which have as their origins that which exists, primarily, between the person and his or her family members or others to whom he or she is significantly attached. In the same way as same sex family members are competitors for differing sex family members, so do right-wing ideologies, as a sublimated attitude of obedience, call for respect towards traditions and protection of authority and that which has been given to the present generations by their forebearers. The leftists call for “revolution” and “disobedience towards authority”, but these are matricidal and patricidal tendencies sublimated, and, in their extreme form – such as in what Karl Marx has written, – should be extremely condemned. And in the same way as sexual attraction is an important feature of differing sex family interaction, so do communists call for “communism”, fulfilment of “man’s needs” and so on, while those on the right voice their opposition to those in the family of a different sex than they are by using such metaphors as “the Nanny state”, adopt an unfavorable position towards taxes etc.
This is also evidenced by certain expressions of a more or less personal nature by proponents of various ideologies. Friedrich Engels, for example, believed in the abolition of the family in favor of basing all of social organisation on the romantic couple. “If I had an income of 5,000 francs, I would do nothing but work and amuse myself with women until I went to pieces” he is said to have once told Marx.
Marx contributed, in part, to his father’s death, when, around the age of 23, he made the decision to become a political radical. The Communist Manifesto reads “[l]et the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution”, but these are the depths of the Oedipus complex. His radicalism seems to have been in large part an outcome of the fact that he was under extreme control of his malevolent wife, although he himself bears part of the responsibility for it too. Aside from having fathered an illegitimate child with the family maid, one aspect of Marx and Jenny von Westphalen’s marriage was the fact that four of Marx’s children died very young. Of the three that survived beyond their teens, all were girls, while of the four that died three were boys. This is why one of the meanings of “classless society” is “childless marriage”, childless, at least, in the sense of eliminating one’s same sex competitors.
Richard Weikart’s article, which is refefenced above, states that “[a]lthough he probably fathered an illegitimate child, otherwise he was apparently a model husband and remained faithful to his wife.” It is only a marxist that could say that – as if those things are not contradictory or Marx’s non-disclosure of this to his wife could not have influenced his views.
The distinction between communism and anarchism has its origins in the psychological distinction between more and less awareness which further arises, probably, out of the distinction between an open and tight sphincter. Anarchism corresponds to the less awareness end of the pole. The psychological distinction is also the same as that referred to when the words “sacred” (less awareness) and “profane” (more awareness) are used; indeed, these are but different words for the same thing. The same holds true for the distinction between right-wing libertarianism and fascism.
Based on the above considerations, one can construct a square of family-interaction attitudes which correspond to positions on the level of politics. The grouping of political ideologies that I use in my thinking is that which is provided by the politicalcompass.org site. Based on their distinctions, political ideologies are categorised into four categories: communism, anarchism, right-wing libertarianism and fascism. The distinction between right and left corresponds to the distinction that suicide and matricide have with incest and parricide. When one is more or less aware of one’s motivations that corresponds to the distinctions that left and right wing categories have within them – communism is thus differentiated from anarchism, and right-wing libertarianism from fascism.

family-attitudes-and-political-ideologies

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s