The control mentality and the love mentality.

I’ve talked about a number of elements related to love and control during these past months. I’ve also talked about the issues of machoism (the faggot mentality), the manichean worldview, and hierarchies. I believe that all these elements come together once we start analyzing how they influence people’s thoughts.

There are four basic relational modes in the control mentality:

1. Domination. One is superior in a hierarchy or in some other form of power which enables the giving of orders as well as an entitlement to favours or better treatment (all the way from politeness to being free to kill without repercussions).

2. Submissiveness. One is inferior in a hierarchy or in some other form of power which pushes one to obey orders and bestow favours or special status on one’s superiors. A submissive person knows his place and doesn’t act, speak or (ideally) think out of line.

3. Rebelliousness. When an angry inferior fights against his superiors by violence, trying to fight it. This rebelliousness is irresponsible and stems from a desire to assume a role that one has not deserved. In the control mentality, this is the mode that Anarchists are categorized as using.

4. Trickery. When an inferior tries to undermine his superiors’ efforts by corrupting people’s minds. Of course the inferior cannot possibly be right, since his superiors deserve to be followed by virtue of being superiors, so he must therefore be lying. The principle that control entails lying and that lying entails control, by the way, is very true, but I doubt any macho really understands this principle or its implications.

Nowadays, by the way, there’s no need for rebellion any more because we are supposedly all “free” and “equal,” and everyone swallows that hook, line and sinker. So there’s very little rebelliousness going on compared to the past ages. Instead, we have all gained the “freedom to complain” and the “freedom to submit voluntarily.” Instead of being forced to submit to our social roles, we are liberated so much that we now submit voluntarily to those same social roles. So as you can see, the improvement here is just incredible. As for the freedom to complain, there’s absolutely no point to complaining if it can’t lead to anything, so that’s an absolute zero.

The end result of all this is that oppression is now internalized, we are all our very own self-censors, and any rebellion or trickery taking place is taking place in our own minds. We are too busy fighting against the effects of exterior determinisms in our own minds to fight against those exterior determinisms, especially since it’s much, much harder to fight an enemy in your own mind than it is to fight a physical enemy.

Anyway, the dominant/submissive relationship is easily transposed to the manichean worldview and the games conditions of collectivism. The “good guys” are the superiors/the “us” and the “bad guys” are the inferiors/the Other/the “them,” to whom anything, including murder, can be committed without qualms, because they are unworthy, because they are subhuman.

The faggot psychology, on the other hand, is more internalized. It’s not a way one is supposed to relate to others as much as a way that one is supposed to feel. And since it’s the dominant psychology in our society (although it’s probably on the way out), it provides us with the bridge between intentionality and structure. People who are raised from birth to be a “real man” (or a “real woman”) and to relate to others in specific aggressive ways will inevitably fall into the lockstep, “us v them” trap. As neo-nazi movements demonstrate, aggressiveness and feelings of superiority are easily translated into outright support of institutional violence. Christian faggotry has equally been shown to lead to such support, time and time again throughout history, most recently in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks.

By the way, the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks are in themselves a perfect example of faggot aggressivity and the control mentality really coming together. Having been attacked on their territory by an inferior faction (which are labeled “terrorists” on the sole basis that they are the “bad guys,” while the US government, which commits similar actions, is not called “terrorist”), the Americans, who see themselves as the “good guys” and superior, are thereby lowered in status from aggressor to victim. Therefore they must re-establish their superiority by becoming aggressors again. So the natural reaction of the faggots after 9-11 was to clamour for a war, any war. This of course gave the ruling class the support they needed to expand their powers considerably at home, and start a genocide abroad.

We have to differentiate between two very distinct goals, one which is the ruling class’ goal of distracting the public with lies and red herrings, and the other which is the ruling class’ actual goal of continued and increased domination. Games conditions enter squarely in the first category. Once one enters into the control mentality, the whole world becomes a gigantic games condition, where “we” have to win over “them.”

But you gotta be careful about what the “we” means in this case. It does not mean the average person on the street. As Goering pointed out, the average subject does not benefit from war and does not want to go to war, does not benefit from police repression or stricter laws or stricter norms. But he accepts all those things as part of the game. The ruling class, on the other hand, couldn’t care less about country, religion or political parties, except when those things can help their careers.

Games conditions, therefore, are nothing but the permanent and self-sustaining implementation of control and/or diversions for the purpose of control. Examples of the first category would be religion and the justice system. Examples of the second category would be the middle class ideal (and the whole capitalist system, by extension) and the entertainment industry.

It was necessary for me to write all of this about the control mentality because I have not written anything about it before. On its opposite, the love mentality, I have written a great deal. All I need to add here is that love inevitably entails breaking out of games conditions, because games conditions are the antithesis of following one’s own values and making evaluations out of one’s own values.

In the love mentality, the considerations are love and control. One can either inflict, accept or fight control, and give, accept or reject love. This is a simplification of more vague thoughts and feelings, obviously, but abstractly that’s all there is to it.

From the control mentality, the love mentality is considered to be “sissy.” For the faggot, this is one of the worst insults there is: it’s a formidable statement of degradation. It shows that you are the lowest kind of submissive, being so submissive that you take an outright womanly attitude. Men are the superior gender and women the inferior gender, you see, so anything that takes on womanly properties is making itself inferior.

We find this association in the differing ways faggots see homosexuality between men and between women. It’s simply bizarre for a woman, an inferior, to try to make herself better, but it’s acceptable for an inferior to try to be a superior through legitimate means. It’s fine if a woman dresses as a man or acts like one of the boys. But a man acting like a woman is degrading himself, therefore he is a degraded being. Two men having sex, by doing what a woman should do, are degraded and therefore unacceptable.

Abortion is another issue dominated by faggot gender roles. It’s mainly the fact that it gives power to women to determine the fate of a man’s future children that turns it into a hot button issue. In the faggot ideology, having children is the primary symbol of being a normal heterosexual man. Note that, as I said in my entry on faggotry, most people who hold this mentality are not actually repressed homosexuals, but are chained to the same mentality as repressed homosexuals through faggot belief systems like machoism, Christianity and militarism.

Being considered sissies, Anarchist activists posture by being as macho as possible, as intimidating and masculine as they can, which of course is the worst thing they could possibly do. By doing so, they confirm their opponents’ game as being valid, and portray themselves as being “just another faction” in the game. This is an enormous disservice to the Anarchist perspective, since our most important claim is that we want to break all those games and make sure they never oppress anyone ever again.

To most people, love is a vulnerability and a liability. Everyone wants to be loved but no one wants to love anyone else. Therefore we play the dating game so we can “win” someone else’s love and enter a state of romantic love. This is a particularly aberrative process because it perverts the concept of love itself, from a freedom of the mind to oppression by the norm. Granted, it’s still better than outright control, but it turns people away from real love.

3 thoughts on “The control mentality and the love mentality.

  1. […] To belong is not to love! A society based on love. The true self, seat of love. (part 1/2) (part 2/2) The radical nature of love. (Part 1/2) (Part 2/2) Love your enemies as yourself. The control mentality and the love mentality. […]

  2. […] not impose harm” by itself seemed too short. Lying and control go hand in hand, and the control mentality is how we get people to view each other as evil and worthy of harm. Ultimately, only by massively […]

  3. […] anonymous author identifies a “control mentality” and a “love mentality.” The “Vision Statement” for this blog […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: