# The Ideology of Suffering



## marmot (May 26, 2007)

The Ideology of Suffering


by marmot


Atheists of all stripes, shout their stupid slogans against religion. Every time, they deliver their attacks to religion on the grounds that it is “superstitious” or that it is “unscientific”. Every time, they fill their mouths with trophies, proclaiming to be in a higher truth for being “devoid of superstitions”.


Yet most of them haven't killed God, they just have zombified it, for they are still chained the Christian rationale of pain. 

That is right. The clerical vermin came proclaiming the Kingdom of God to those who self-sacrificed their earthly life in exchange of the Celestial Gift. Carnal desires and spiritual emancipation had to go down the drain.


The Kingdom of God was the Kingdom of the Castrated.


Today, the new ideologues of suffering—separated from the feudal mode of production—come proclaiming their own Kingdom—but this time, it is the Kingdom of Capital. 


Still, carrying the old rationale of pain in their hearts, they ask for your castration, masochistic self-sacrifice, and pain. Work-hard, be disciplined, be responsible—for only by working hard would you enter the Kingdom of the Commodity. The flat screeen, gadgetery, yatche, lamborgini—all can be yours if you work hard for it!


Both, the clerical parasite and the capitalist scumfuck, ask for the sacrifice of real concrete happiness, in order to exchange it for sedated happiness.


Their Kingdoms are the equivalent of the alcohol of the alcoholic and the cocaine of the drug-addict. They are the illusions that reinforce hierarchical power of the elite over the oppressed. They are unreachable, they are fictitious, yet, they are the substance that fuels a social order where generalized self-sacrifice serves the lucky few at the top of the pyramid. 


So then, I reject all illusions. I reject the ideology-drug being traded for my life by the Cartels of the Mind and of Capital—that dead-weight that chains me to the ground, giving me barely any energy to breath. 


I reject the present social order, only because...
I reject suffering.


----------



## americanwriter (May 27, 2007)

*Huh?*

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  You lost me in the first paragraph.  It has the tenor of being a philosophical piece and yet . . . I can't say after reading it I really know what your point is.  The profanity and the name-calling degenerate it to an emotional tirade, evident in the angry tone, and I'm afraid I would't take the author's point of view [if I could identify it] very seriously.  There are misused words, grammatical, and punctuation issues too.  

Hope you'll take another run at it and let us see the focused, polished work when you're done.


----------



## ProudestMonkey (May 27, 2007)

Atheists of all stripes *if they have the title Atheist, isn't that their "stripe?...*, shout their stupid *wow. you make yourself look stupid by using such a word in an essay!...* slogans against religion* like what?...*. Every time, they deliver their attacks to religion on the grounds that it is “superstitious” or that it is “unscientific” *source these quotations, please...*. Every time, they fill their mouths with trophies, proclaiming to be in a higher truth for being “devoid of superstitions”. *this writing is much too bigoted to be taken seriously, im sorry. this is where i'll stop...

and how in the world is asking for discipline and hard-work keeping God alive. They are universal! And I'd say, since you've done so much research, that you'd agree that the Ancient Romans (you know, before jesus) considered "suffering" as you put it, to be quite important.
*


----------



## Blackviolet (May 27, 2007)

I think that Christianity has always served the purpose of establishing the served and the servant. I really believe that's the basis. Whether it's wrong or not is highly debatable and even guilty of chameleon intent - in other word's, it's extremely flexible and can be used by anyone for anything.

I think this piece lacks stream. It's like a brain splatter on a page - or, in this case, on the internet. It's a little ironic because the main point of religion is order. Consequently this piece has none, but don't be discouraged. All this criticism is meant with love.

Maybe you should take it one issue at a time and really let your mind sink into it. You may have some significant points you'd like to make and I truly believe there's somewhere specific you want to go, but maybe the ideas are so built up that it's hard to organize. Of course, you'll have to get them straight for people to understand. 

You're right - there is an ideology behind suffering. But I think it's two-fold. Probably even multi-faceted, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Do you think you'll revise this or was it just sort of a release?


----------



## marmot (May 27, 2007)

Thanks. 



			
				americanwriter said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you're going with this.  You lost me in the first paragraph.  It has the tenor of being a philosophical piece and yet . . . I can't say after reading it I really know what your point is.  The profanity and the name-calling degenerate it to an emotional tirade, evident in the angry tone, and I'm afraid I would't take the author's point of view [if I could identify it] very seriously.  There are misused words, grammatical, and punctuation issues too.
> 
> Hope you'll take another run at it and let us see the focused, polished work when you're done.


It is not a philosophical piece, it is more of a personal piece. 

I agree it probably lacks some focus, however I never intended it to be an academic paper, it was intentional for it to be emotional. Thanks for the feedback.

Can you please pinpoint me some of the grammatical errors? English is not my first language, thanks. 



> ey     Atheists of all stripes *if they have the title Atheist, isn't that their "stripe?...*, shout their stupid *wow. you make yourself look stupid by using such a word in an essay!...* slogans against religion* like what?...*. Every time, they deliver their attacks to religion on the grounds that it is “superstitious” or that it is “unscientific” *source these quotations, please...*. Every time, they fill their mouths with trophies, proclaiming to be in a higher truth for being “devoid of superstitions”. *this writing is much too bigoted to be taken seriously, im sorry. this is where i'll stop...*


Ha!

Well I think people here misunderstood my purpose. I posted this piece because I wanted to get feedback on the way it was written, and how effective it was in creating an emotional response. This is not an academic paper, again.

But apparently it did create a big emotional response

Second, I am an atheist, and this is not a tirade against atheism itself, but against morality.



> and how in the world is asking for discipline and hard-work keeping God alive. They are universal! And I'd say, since you've done so much research, that you'd agree that the Ancient Romans (you know, before jesus) considered "_suffering_" as you put it, to be quite important.


Although this is true to a certain extent, there is a crucial difference between the Christian and the Roman/Greek rationale.

Many of the Greek and Roman philosophers stressed that the best way to live is to live "a good life" full of pleasures. Probably the state always stressed "hard work" for the ruling class' survival was dependent of others' hardwork. Some philosophers did stress the virtues of hard work, but many others did not.  However, misery as the watermark of mainstream ideology, wasn't really established until the advent of Christianity. This is why Nietzche considered that the Greek were the ones that came closer to achieve "ubermensch" status.



> I think that Christianity has always served the purpose of establishing the served and the servant. I really believe that's the basis. Whether it's wrong or not is highly debatable and even guilty of chameleon intent - in other word's, it's extremely flexible and can be used by anyone for anything.


 This is true, Christianity has been able to adapt to many circumstances many easy. But again, its watermark has always beein "pain" and "suffering"




> Do you think you'll revise this or was it just sort of a release?


 This wasn't a sort of release, when I post writings in forums it is generally to get feedback and see what I did wrong and where I was correct in my approach. 

Thanks.


----------



## mammamaia (May 27, 2007)

sorry, but i have to agree with all the observations made above... this is not a good or even half-decent piece of writing... and makes no coherent argument for or against anything...

you asked for examples of errors... here are just a few:



> Atheists of all stripes,[error explained by 'monk'] shout their stupid slogans against religion. ['shout...against' is awkward, should be reworded to make better sense... such as, 'spout...in opposition to religion'] Every time, they deliver [awkward sentence structure... and 'every time' should be 'they always,' to mean what you seem to intend in that sentence] their attacks to [should be 'on' not 'to'] religion[comma needed here] on the grounds that it is “superstitious” or that it is “unscientific”. [unless you're british, periods go inside " "]Every time, [ditto note above] they fill their mouths with trophies,[makes no sense... what do you mean by 'trophies'?] proclaiming to be in a higher truth for being [awkwardly worded, meaning unclear] “devoid of superstitions”.


----------



## ampersand (Jun 17, 2007)

Interesting idea but the execution is poor. It needs more depth and possibly a less stringent tone. However, I can feel it going somewhere so it's worth rewriting.


----------



## Kyrie (Jun 17, 2007)

marmot said:
			
		

> Well I think people here misunderstood my purpose. I posted this piece because I wanted to get feedback on the way it was written, and how effective it was in creating an emotional response. This is not an academic paper, again.



Uh, then maybe you should have said so in the beginning. I can't help you much with the grammar since it's already been taken care of. Although as a little piece of advise (which you can ignore if you so choose) I'd say, try to sound less emotional while writing an essay, it takes away some credibility if it sounds like it was written with a hot head.

Good luck~


----------



## Uriah (Jun 17, 2007)

"The Ideology of Suffering" and your essential thesis present enough fertile territory to make this a great piece, do some research, get some examples create basic logical argument and this will work very good. 
But I won't caution you to remove yourself emotionally from your work, instead I say this: Don't let anger and frustration be the only emotions you channel into it. Pour your entire heart into it, and then let the critics decide what kind of art it is.

I got it, and I liked it.

Keep Writing!
Uriah


----------



## Cipher2 (Jun 17, 2007)

You might do well to clarify the point.  Are you railing against morality or suffering or self injury through martyrdom? Since it is easier to understand if you explain further.  Do you mean a (religious?) ideology that enjoyment and pleasure are bad? Since morality is also a code of behaviour to prevent people causing others harm or restricting others' rights and goes some way to _prevent_ suffering.


----------



## aimeefriedland (Jun 27, 2007)

_ Atheists of all stripes, shout their *stupid *slogans against religion._

perhaps if u want peoples' respect, u should consider being more objective and less offensive?


----------



## Devotchka (Jul 5, 2007)

For some positive feedback - 

Unlike Monk, I think 'atheists of all stripes' is correct, because I am an atheist, but not the kind that you describe in this piece, so yes, we do vary...just as religious or agnostic people do. And we don't even have a special book to live by, so we can very all the more..!

'Fill their mouths with trophies'..I get this, and I like it. Like they speak of their new awards, of wealth and the american dream etc and of course you consume food with your mouth, and these trophies are consumed as a kind of life-blood by people that think like that..at least I think the author is implying this. And he put it much more concisely! 

I do differ on opinion tho - there are those that fill their mouths with trophies, and then the trophies they stuff into others' mouths without them asking. False consciousness is as much as part of this 'ideology' as anything else.

I'm not really into this fundamentalist atheism sorta thing, but I gather its pretty big in the US, around the net anyway. Hardly surprising I guess. 

You switch styles between quasi-religious proclamations and straightforward political statements throughout. Maybe you were going for that? 

I wouldn't go with much of mammamia's substituting of words - yours are much more poetic.

Overall this is an interesting idea. Maybe you could delve deeper into it.


----------

