Stop Making Martyrs

The martyr cannot be dishonored. Every lash inflicted is a tongue of fame; every prison a more illustrious abode.
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

James Damore is another individual added to the growing list of “mundane martyrs” – a list of boring, every day people who speak out against obvious insanity and get attacked by the radical leftists for it. No one cared or knew anything about Bret or Eric Weinstein before the left freaked out over someone not complying to their insane demands, ending with him being unsafe on his own campus. Jordan Peterson now makes hundreds of thousands of dollars through Patreon. If the goal of these radical leftists was to silence and dehumanize dissidents, then they are doing a spectacularly poor job.

Going farther, shutting down speakers (especially in over the top ways) also hinders their cause. If Milo, or Ann Coulter, or Ben Shapiro were allowed to speak, 50 to 100 people would show up, 99.99% of them already supporters. Instead, by lighting their venues on fire, smashing windows, and stalking them at their dinners, they end up getting a book deal and a spot on Fox News. All the left needs to do is let them speak and then write a by-line in the school newspaper about how a racist fascist showed up, and then distort what they said (since no leftist would ever look into the person themselves).

But their ideology won’t allow for that. Quietly silencing enemies isn’t viable for them because they won’t get to grandstand otherwise. This becomes the main point (which cannot be stressed enough): the radical left’s ideology is fundamentally incompatible with winning the culture war. The only reason they have succeeded thus far is because they control almost all of the pillars of society, and also due to the fact that the Right does not actually want to win the culture war. They’re insane and over the top, but not in the correct or productive ways. They can’t have fun. They can’t mock themselves. They’re easily triggered by anything and everything. They excommunicate members for thinking slightly incorrectly. They literally can not win.

And since they are a cult, the left is unable to change their ideology in any significant manner. They must go with what the leaders say. They can not make radical leftism “cool” in its current form. They’re boring, easily mockable, authoritarian, and downright unlikable. There is a reason that the majority of Generation Z is conservative. There is a reason that Whites went for Trump (and not because of “muh racism”). No one wants to join a group of people who call others racists and sexists for having slightly different opinions. It’s not effective marketing. When all the “feminist fail” videos present them in an easily mockable light, while most rebuttals to the Right are overly serious, contrived, or downright unfunny, what do you think happens to younger, rambunctious people? The “Left can’t meme” observation isn’t a joke, and it isn’t to be dismissed as a failure of their group.

So let the left keep making martyrs. Let them keep shutting down guest speakers. Let them keep showing the egregious bias in media and academia. They keep putting themselves at a disadvantage every time they do so. The moderates are watching, and they don’t like what they see.

Argumentative Framing

In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative.
– Ted Cruz

One of the interesting factors in debates is how people decide to frame their arguments. This is usually done to be part of a larger scheme. However, this limits the factors of the issue. It can also maliciously be used to adopt non-argumentative strategies such as name calling.

For example, we frame abortion as a “women’s rights” issue. Yet, far more factors play into the issue. It can easily be framed as a health issue. The health of the mother or fetus can be argued as a basis for or against abortion. It can also be a family issue, since the father could be involved along with the rest of the family. Yet, it is primarily framed only as a women’s rights issue. This could be done for several reasons. One way is to attach the idea of an attack on rights to it, that the idea of preventing unfettered access to abortion is attached to some kind of right turns opponents into authoritarians who will strip away personal liberty. The other method is the ability to call someone who opposes a “sexist”. This of course is not an argument nor is it helpful in debate.

Another issue framed in a negative way is immigration restrictions, either through directly banning certain groups or enforcing existing laws. It is very easy to frame it opposition to unfettered immigration as “xenophobic” or “islamophobic”. Of course, it is easier to frame it as an issue as one involving security. This is especially true when the travel ban was announced for a temporary period until proper vetting mechanisms are in place. This is also true when the very act of being undocumented is a crime. This alters the arguments made. Either enforcing laws is bigotry, or not enforcing the laws makes us less secure.

This pattern presents a disconnect between the different arguments. When one presents a particular argument, it is usually assumed that the opponent is against your argument, rather than possessing their own. It would be assumed that being against abortion makes the opponent a sexist, and being for it makes one a murderer. These extremes are not useful in any discussion. It cannot be thought of that the opponent has different priorities or ideals. The opponent must be against mine. It is important that the framing of an issue does not get in the way of argumentation.

Positive Dehumanization

Perhaps an interesting factor in society is what could be called “positive dehumanization”. This occurs when we dehumanize people by elevating them to a status beyond humanity. This occurs most often with authority figures, particularly judges and scientists, but can also occur on a group basis as well. This is dangerous as it creates a blind trust in a group of individuals, who may often become anonymized.

It is probably standard procedure to immediately accept any political outcome regardless of its logicality as long as it benefits your side. This is, of course, bad thinking. But it gets dangerous when it applies to judges. When a court issues a decision, do we look at the logic behind it? Do we look at any criticisms? When we fail to analyze decisions critically, we unintentionally give a veneer of superiority to the judge. There can be no such thing as an incorrect ruling! Judges can’t be biased! We should thank the judges for damaging our political opponents (and nothing more. And we wonder why our society is so politicized.) What about the fact that the judge in question was a classmate of Obama’s and was in his area a few days before the ruling? Alt-Right conspiracy theory! There is totally no way a judge could be corrupt!

This puts the commentary on Trump’s “so-called judge” comments in an interesting place. First, as a basis, this means that attacking the judiciary (while holding any position) is wrong. Placing judges on a pedestal does not bode well for the future. Not being able to criticize judges on any basis, for childish reasons or not, sets a dangerous environment where criticizing any judge becomes a social taboo. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves on any possible conflict of interest or if there could be any source of bias. This, admittedly, would include race or ethnicity. Perhaps Trump should have pointed to his involvement in La Raza, but race and ethnicity are also important factors. Why do we complain when black defendants get an all white jury? Every factor must be taken into consideration when ensuring a fair trial.

Scientists are also another key example of this trend. We often see articles about “experts” declaring something. We do not usually care how many agree or disagree, and don’t look into their credentials (unless their name is Sebastian Gorka). What university are they related to? Who peer reviewed their papers? Was the paper well received? Was the paper paid for or endorsed by a third party? Was the method correct? It doesn’t matter as they are “scientists” who can do no wrong.

By taking a series of “experts” as an anonymized group, one places blind trust in a group of individuals. It is important to be skeptical of everything, even from so-called authority figures. One can not attach a term to a group or individual and suddenly exempt them from criticism because “they know better”. Placing them in a larger group masks any issues such as agendas or flawed logic or studies hidden. All this does is block needed queries.

Why the left is scared

Nations, like stars, are entitled to eclipse. All is well, provided the light returns and the eclipse does not become endless night.

– Victor Hugo

One of course notices the left freaking out about our fascist, authoritarian, Nazi dictator disguised as the president. It is all very interesting. They are interested in defending the constitution, an oppressive document. They now adore American values that are part of the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. They suddenly go from attacking our country to defending our country (or their botched idea of our country).

I will not go into whether Trump is authoritarian or not, but it is clear to any objective individual concerned with liberty that the left is far more authoritarian. They want to implement hate speech laws, force job hiring quotas, infringe on our 2nd amendment rights, and some want to do a massive redistribution of wealth. They would adore a leader ignoring the constitution to implement their agenda. It would certainly help if the leader were on their side, but the base principles are the same.

So what is the left scared of? First and foremost, Trump’s very election has dealt a strong blow to the mechanics of the radical left. Taking quotes out of context does not work anymore. Smearing individuals does not work anymore. Calling people the usual leftist buzzwords does not work anymore. Making false accusations do not work anymore. Hillary Clinton winning the election would have given the radical left a mandate. It would have proven that the leftist tactics worked. It didn’t. Gamergate happened. Trump happened. Brexit happened. Their tactics have failed on a global scale. They have suffered a political defeat that, in my opinion, has not been seen since the fall of the Nazis.

They also fear Trump’s agenda. Mainly because he has destroyed or will destroy the three pillars of the left: academia, the media, and Hollywood.
The public’s trust in the media is at an all time low. CNN’s ratings have plummeted while Fox remains king. Breitbart is the most popular political website. Tucker Carlson gets higher ratings in every demographic than the Daily Show. The left has no more media outlets that are trustworthy. It is also key that they are losing moderate leftists over unfair coverage. Their plan to call websites ‘Fake News’ has failed (note the intense projection in the fifth paragraph). Without control over the media, the left has failed to create a compliant citizenry.

Academia has yet to be touched. This will change once DeVos is confirmed (and it is of critical importance that she is). DeVos has donated to FIRE, which means she is at least sympathetic to the ideas they provide. School choice is critical. This means that competition will be created amongst non-college education. If a parent does not want to send their student to Social Justice High School, they can easily attend another school. We know social justice can not compete in the market place. Trump has also advocated for vocational training. This creates competition among universities. They will no longer receive a constant flow of students. They can simply train for 2 years to become a mechanic or plumber. This means that universities will be forced to compete as well. They may offer their own programs, or expand their STEM research. This will thin out sociology and gender studies departments.

The true reason the left is scared is because they know their time is up. They know that in 2 or 3 years, their ideas will be laughed at and ignored. Generation Z favors Trump over Hillary by 15%. Trump’s approval rating is 57%. 47% of Americans approve of the way the country is heading, the highest it has been in 12 years. 57% of voters approve of the recent executive order to freeze certain immigration for 90 days. Those who oppose him are in a vocal minority.

As for the recent trend of political violence, we have not reached the tipping point yet. The violence is not coming from leftists. It is mainly coming from the radical marxists / communists LARPing as revolutionaries. They see this time period as the last chance they have. Most people approving of violence are just people trying to act tough on the internet. We are not there yet, but we might soon be

Bigfoot Logic

My single-minded aim is to give existence to fantasy.

– Claes Oldenburg

Ideological thought is unfalsifiable, due to the immense need for ideological preservation. Any thought that goes against the narrative is almost immediately reshaped into something that does. This usually means that an obtuse, unprovable explanation is given. I call this “Bigfoot logic”.

Imagine you are at a camp site and go away from the tent to go fishing. You come back to your tent destroyed and items broken. What could be the explanation? An animal attack might be logical and sensible. A thief or a bad wind storm might also make sense. The conspiracy theorist’s explanation: Bigfoot! This of course is not provable because there is no solid evidence for Bigfoot’s existence. There was no way of knowing what hit your campsite. A regular animal attack would be provable as it is logical, and footprints and bite marks would be present. But declaring Bigfoot would mean that the conspiracy theorist is correct, and reinforce the narrative.

As an example, Stanford’s rate of sexual assault were low. What could be the reasoning for this? The logical explanation might be that sexual assault is just not committed. Perhaps the sexual assault awareness programs are effective (never mind that the actually are not). What is their answer? The rates must be fixed! The university is clearly covering up the mass amount of rape! Women are reporting less frequently! These are of course, unprovable accusations. If the university was investigated for cover ups and they were found to have done so, it proves the narrative. If the investigation is inconclusive, then it is simply the university covering itself up again. There is no hard way to prove that students are reporting less frequently (and no, self-report surveys have massive problems, not to mention all of the issues that the 1 in 5 studies have on their own). If they do report less often, then the narrative is reinforced. If they do not report less often, it is still a cover up or they are still scared of reporting. There is no way out of the narrative.

Another great example is the one Gad Saad uses. A student wore a hijab for 2 weeks to seek out islamophobia and bigotry on campus. It turns out everyone was kind and accepting. The obvious conclusion is that everyone is not a bigot. The actual answer? It is just the students trying to make up for the fact that they really are bigoted! Not only is there no way out, there is no way to prove that the students are closet bigots, outside of secretly monitoring them.

Now, there is also no way to prove that students are always tolerant and accepting. But “proving” a theory is not necessarily the key point. A simple, straightforward, and logical example is all that should be considered. Assuming the unlikely does not work. An explanation that a normal person would accept should be enough. Ideologues are not normal people, as they are beholden to their narratives.

Ideological Thought

Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.
– E. O. Wilson

Another interesting (and dangerous) part of ideologies and bias are the effects on thought. Ideological preservation implants itself into the mind quite easily. People obviously have their biases and read things how they want to, leading to blatant confirmation bias. However, ideologues go much farther, not allowing or giving any possible thought to alternate explanations most of the time. Otherwise, they risk their narrative being shattered. Thus, ideologues need to practice this far more than normal individuals.

Let’s take a simple example: the second amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The process goes something like this: the statement is read in the base language. Additional information such as context are thought of as well. This goes into the mind to be processed by the brain. Then, it hits the “ideological part” of the brain. An NRA member will read the 2nd amendment will focus on the “right of the People to keep and bear arms” segment. An gun control activist will focus on the “well regulated militia” segment. The other parts of the statement will most likely be ignored. Again, we read what we want, but ideologues have a bigger duty to preserve the narrative, and thus the typical bias is enhanced.

Another example is the controversy and narrative around the new Ghostbusters movie. The narrative is that anyone who does not want to see the movie is just a sexist. Any other explanation can be given, such as the movie is not funny or the special effects are bad, but this goes against the narrative. The narrative must be preserved at all costs.

On a different note, the narrative becomes pervasive when it is mixed with identity politics. The narrative needs to be preserved, even with non-arguments. For example, a male saying that the wage gap does not exist would be declared a sexist. One can point to a female saying that the wage gap does not exist, and the answer is usually “internalized misogyny” or they are “uneducated”, all of which are attacks on the individual instead of their position. The narrative implants itself in the brain. There is no possible way a female or a “true feminist” could argue against a feminist narrative or argument. So there has to be some kind of alternate explanation. It is difficult if not impossible to argue against non-arguments. Ideological preservation is the only thing that the ideologue cares about. It again goes deeper than bias, because the bias is necessary for the ideology’s survival. There is no possible way for an ideologue to think neutrally.

Argumentative Labelling

No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist.
– Dennis Prager

Ideologies pose a danger in that they not only limit their members, but outsiders as well. You obviously have to call your movement something. This is where things fall apart. All too often, the name of the ideology is used as a defense for it. Don’t approve of Black Lives Matter? You’re a racist! Don’t approve of a feminist idea? You must be a sexist! It is the ultimate non-argument, because it literally avoids any possible argument.

This is very important in opposing ideologies. For example, if you attack Democratic ideas, you must be a Republican. If you’re for Democratic ideas, you must be left-wing. This leaves the idea out of the question. You can’t debate the idea for what the idea is worth. You have to line yourself up with a particular ideology in order to debate it.

Another very important issue is “guilt by association” or just simple smearing. On Buzzfeed or other typical leftist sites, Republicans or conservatives are racist, sexist, bigots etc. So, if you are a Republican (or echo a conservative idea) you must be racist. The same thing happens to the alt-right and men’s rights activists. Yes, there are problems with these groups, but they do not give a true sense of the movement or ideas, as they are selected examples (new law: when media posts an article about trolls / “harassment” on the internet, and tweets are embedded, the tweets more often than not have 20 retweets/favorites or less). Of course, it still is ignoring the basis of the ideas. If the idea itself is bigoted, then why do you need to connect it to a movement? If the idea is so helpful and virtuous, can it not stand on its own?

It also leads to endless ad-hominems. “You are not a true conservative” or “you don’t understand the movement” is again ignoring the core idea. Why should I have to know everything about an ideology to criticize an idea that affects broad society? Of course, the person who claims to be a “true” part or that understands the movement, is the other person. It is a position that can not be argued against – because it is not an argument.

Outsiders are crucial , as the entire purpose of a movement or ideology is to attract those not in the movement, and create a positive perception (or so it would seem to an outsider). If someone not in your movement finds something off or generally does not agree, it can be used as a tool of recruitment. One can explain why their argument is flawed, or the movement could gain new insight for a problem. Of course, any internal or external disagreements lead to the collapse of an ideology, hence this behavior and the need for ideological preservation.

Academic One Liners

If you do weave one-liners into a story, you have to have an overall story as well, otherwise it doesn’t really count as narrative.
– Tim Vine

One may question the need for ideological preservation. Why are ideologies so fragile? One of the main reasons is that most ideologies can be reduced to a single sentence summary. All you have to do to disprove an ideology is find something that goes against the summary. This is why ideological preservation is so important. Science is made up of laws, whether in physics or chemistry. One would have to disprove every law in order to disprove those scientific paradigms. All it takes is one survey, one poll, one study, or common sense to destroy an ideology.

Let’s start with an established example. The religious right claims that “violent media creates child killers”. While there is link to increased aggression, there is no link to actual violence. This of course completely destroys the ideology, sending its members into a panicked frenzy of ideological preservation.

Now, let’s take that same example, and replace “child killers” with “sexism”. This is of course a prime narrative in feminist circles, that the portrayal of women and minorities in media contributes to negative behavior in real life. A study came out proving this. Of course, an analysis of the study proved it was completely wrong (ever notice how ideologues who use studies only care about the headline, instead of having any actual analysis, or God forbid actually looking at the data?). This again goes against the one-liner narrative.

This holds true in academia as well as in mainstream ideologies. One of the tenets of postmodernism is “everything is socially constructed”. So when people start looking into things such as universal grammar, which says that language learning and creation is biological, people get upset. Any biology regarding humans goes against postmodernism. I’ll leave a riddle that no one seems to want to answer: Transgender people are born with the brain of the gender they claim to be (this of course also destroys the idea that biological gender is a social construct). This therefore concludes that there are differences between male and female brains. Yet, females and males have brains that are “not too different” and “differing behaviors are a myth.” Have fun with preserving that one.

One can argue that ideologies are broad movements that can’t be summarized into one line. Scientific laws can certainly be summarized in a line or two. The problem lies in the fact that science is harder to break. If you found evidence that contradicts gravitational laws, then there would be ideological preservation taking place. However, these theories have been tested for centuries. It is very easy to find and argue against thought rather than hard science. The ideas or laws are also very linked to each other. If social constructivism is not entirely accurate, then that’s many many more theories and ideas that are now inaccurate or flat out incorrect. Obviously, science is played out in the same way, but it is still much harder to break evidence with evidence. It is much easier to break theory with evidence.

Ideological Preservation Part 2: Ignorance and Dismissal

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

– Robertson Davies

One of the most basic mechanisms of ideological preservation is simple ignorance. If conflicting facts are not presented, then there is no need to explain them. This is primarily done in classrooms and academia because it is extremely simple to do so: just don’t mention it. Of course, the purpose of a university (in theory…) is to present multiple views on a subject to encourage critical thought. However, at least in my experience, this has not occurred. In my sociology classes throughout the year, it took until nearly the end of the last quarter to bring up any criticism of Marxism. If students do not seek out criticisms, whether they do not want to or do not know where to look, then the ideas in the classrooms are presented as a singular entity. One of my professors said “If you don’t think Thomas Kuhn is correct, then you’re just wrong!” I suppose Alan Sokal is just wrong then…

Media of course plays easily into this role as well. I already went into detail about how social media ruins any critical thought. Obviously, the media is in control of the narrative. They for example, won’t make headlines stating that Obama banned all Venezuelan immigrants (as of the time of writing the search “obama venezuela immigration” only returns Reddit results). This is because they want to keep the narrative that Trump banning entire countries from immigrating is unacceptable. It is also why feminist websites will never post about Hillary Clinton’s foundation pay gap.

When these facts are brought to light, the next step is dismissal. The easiest way, at least in academia, is to simply say that they are wrong. The source is unreliable or ill-argued. This is done from a position of power and nothing else. We are trusting that the professors be unbiased, and take their word for it. They do not need to justify any complaints that something is wrong. The classic way to dismiss is to simply label the work. Saying that a work is “outdated” or even conservative (God forbid that someone has a different belief system!) is another simple method of dismissal which requires no substantive explanation or defense of one’s own ideology (Kimball, Roger – Tenured Radicals pg 20). When you’re out of ideas, one can fall back on the good-old fashioned tried and true method of comparing things you don’t like to Hitler (Tenured Radicals pg 5).

Feminism gains far more power by accusing something of being racist or sexist. These are simple yet powerful words. They still hold no meaning, especially in academia. Stating that something is sexist does not necessarily make it so. In my opinion, only the intent matters in acts. The problem is that otherwise, such terms become nebulous and tricky to define. Does one person calling a view sexist make it so? Does it have to be two or more? Does it have to be every female professor? If one person does not find the view sexist, is it enough to cancel it out? If a female professor agrees that it is not sexist, does that cancel it out? There is no way to determine if something is sexist or racist. There is no definable objective test as to whether a view is sexist or not, it can only be subjective in nature. As such, it is ripe for abuse, as one can then simply claim any view they don’t like is sexist or racist (Tenured Radicals pg 20).

Ignorance is bliss. By ignoring conflicting facts and reason, the ideology preserves itself quite well. Marxism and feminism are, in universities, presented as the only correct view. This also applies to other current paradigms such as postmodernism or critical theory. This is dangerous, as it means no other interpretations are considered. Putting all the problems in these paradigms aside, all of these ideologies are just one method of interpreting the world. Encouraging and implanting one world view is detrimental to the university experience as well as in real life. Of course, the ideologues are far more concerned with the upkeep of their ideology, rather than considering other points of view.

Dismissal is also dangerous to individuals as well. When something is dismissed, it is done through a position of power. Power is then used as the justification. When a professor says a view is incorrect or wrong, they do so with presumed authority. Of course, this does not mean that professors can’t correct an incorrect presumption or view, they just have to do it factually and rationally. Simply saying it is wrong is not enough. Referencing their own ideological positions are not enough either, especially when such ideology is also easily debunked. The classic feminist line is “educate yourself and check your privilege!”. This is also done from a position of power, as it is presuming that the one using the line is more informed about the subject. The main issue is that it increases animosity towards other points of view. If you’re view is right, why should you have to explain it? You’re clearly the more informed one. Anyone who brings out criticisms must not know what they are talking about! In that regard, dismissal then plays multiple roles. It preserves the ideology by giving a simple, inarguable reason to get rid of opposing views. It also functions as a recruiting tool, as dismissing from a position of power, especially when they are a professor, makes one want to learn the “right” way of thinking. When ignorance and dismissal fails, that’s when the reshaping process begins…

Ideological Preservation Part 1: Introduction

It is difficult to free fools from their chains they revere.

– Voltaire

(Note: This is meant to be a simple introduction. More detailed posts will come, and this post will be updated to reflect that.)

Ideologies do not just spring up and take over. There is a process for their formation. More importantly, there needs to be a process of ideological preservation. If an ideology does not have the means to preserve itself, it will eventually fall prone to fracture. The fracturing process has occurred naturally both in academic and political contexts, such as within the GOP or in psychology (especially with Freud). Ideologues have no interest in this fracture, as they would lose the ideology they are dependent on for so many reasons.

The ideological preservation process is complex and has several tools available for use:

  • Reshaping Process – The reshaping process reshapes thoughts or ideas to fit an ideology. There are 3 steps to this process: ignorance, dismissal, and reshaping. Ignorance and dismissal are simple enough. Reshaping occurs when a conflicting idea is explained within the confines of the ideology. The result are statements such as “Men are victims of the patriarchy too.”
  • Moldy Pretzel Theory  – Moldy pretzel theory applies when a conflicting idea is distorted and left undesirable. This works as both a tool of preservation and one of recruitment.
  • Self-fulfilling Theories – These are theories, who by their very existence, cause the very trouble they are trying to solve. Marxism itself is a large self-fulfilling ideology. Putting people into groups that are opposed to each other does not solve racial, economic, or gender relations. Stereotype threat is another example. By stating that minorities perform worse academically due to notions that they underperform, the notion that minorities perform worse is simply reinforced.
  • Oversimplification – Oversimplification is when an idea is narrowed down to destroy any nuance associated with it. This occurs with ideas that the ideology accepts and as well as opposes. Terminological takeover is a more sustained example of this.
  • Non-Arguments – One of the most prevalent preservation tools. Labelling and political tribalism are one simple method. Circular perceptives are another.

The preservation process has many moving parts. Certain ideologies are better at preserving themselves than others. Feminism is by far the most evolved because it is the only ideology to hit the everyday mainstream. As an ideology becomes more popular, the more defense is needed. Ideologies such as the religious right have these techniques, but are less effective as not everyone is religious. Marxism, despite being evolved academically, has difficulty entering the mainstream due to the radical nature of its ideals. Marxism has of course co-opted the feminist movement (one can argue that it always has) and gained popularity that way, but when detached from feminism the ideology is less effective at preservation, albeit it is still in close control due to its relation to academia.

The result of these posts is to hopefully demonstrate these processes, how they work, and most importantly, how (or if) they can be defeated. This framework applies to all ideologies, and examples from different ideologies will be utilized.