The relentless search for contemporary “Jesus figures” to deliver us from the oppressive grip of “the man” reveals a profound discontent with the existing ideological structure, one that is emblematic of our late capitalist condition. This can be interpreted as the collective’s desperate attempt to fill the void of the objet petit a—the unattainable object of desire, that which is always missing. This figure is expected to embody the lost cause, the pure subject who, untainted by the symbolic order, can somehow lead us to redemption.
But why the specific allure of high testosterone combined with neurodivergence? Here, we encounter a fascinating inversion reminiscent of Nietzsche’s “slave morality,” but with a distinctly postmodern twist. In classical slave morality, the oppressed transmute their weakness into a kind of moral superiority. Now, however, in a world where traditional masculinity and conformity to societal norms have been pathologized, the outcast—the one who refuses to conform to the master signifier of late capitalist normalcy—becomes the hero. This is not merely a Nietzschean reversal but a symptom of a deeper crisis in the symbolic order itself.
We could argue that this new archetype reflects an underlying anxiety in the collective unconscious. The traditional hero—rational, composed, and aligned with the symbolic law—no longer resonates in a world that feels increasingly chaotic and unmoored. Instead, we project our desire for liberation onto figures who seem to operate outside the law, who embody the raw, untamed forces that the symbolic order attempts to repress. This is the real of the neurodivergent, whose very existence is a challenge to the seamless functioning of the ideological apparatus.
Yet, this elevation of the neurodivergent, high-testosterone figure is fraught with contradictions. Is this not the ultimate fetishization of the symptom? By glorifying those who resist or are marginalized by the dominant order, we risk reinforcing the very structures we seek to escape. We are mistaking the symptom—the visible sign of our discontent—for the cure. The neurodivergent, high-testosterone savior is but another fantasy, another screen onto which we project our desire for a new master, one who can somehow deliver us from the contradictions of our existence without fundamentally altering the underlying structure.
Thus, the search for these “Jesus figures” reveals less about the potential for genuine liberation and more about our inability to confront the true nature of our discontent. We cling to the hope that someone from outside the system can save us, while refusing to acknowledge that it is the system itself that must be transformed. In this way, the marriage of high testosterone and neurodivergence becomes a new slave morality, one that allows us to critique the system while remaining safely within its bounds, never fully challenging the symbolic order that defines our reality.
In the image before us, we encounter a political compass that deftly captures the underlying absurdities of our contemporary ideological landscape. Each quadrant satirically reduces the moral and political concerns of a particular ideological position to a singular, paradoxical statement: everything is framed as a dire issue except for the most egregious examples of that issue, which are somehow deemed acceptable. This visual satire speaks volumes about the state of modern discourse, where ideological purity often leads to the absurd sanctioning of the very atrocities that the ideology ostensibly seeks to prevent.
The Perverse Logic of Ideological Capture
Let us begin by examining the upper left quadrant, labeled “Authoritarian Left,” where “Everything is revisionist propaganda except actual revisionist propaganda, which is fine.” This statement encapsulates the Marxist critique of ideology in its most distilled form. The revisionist, often accused of betraying the purity of Marxist doctrine, becomes a convenient scapegoat for those who refuse to confront the revisionism inherent in their own practices. The denunciation of revisionism itself becomes a form of ideological revisionism, where the true betrayal lies not in the content of the revision but in the very act of accusing others of revisionism while engaging in it oneself. This is a classic example of the psychoanalytic concept of projection, where the subject disavows their own ideological impurity by externalizing it onto the Other.
Moving to the upper right quadrant, the “Authoritarian Right,” we find the statement “Everything is genocide except actual genocide, which is fine.” Here, we confront the most chilling aspect of ideological obfuscation: the ability to label almost anything as genocide while remaining utterly blind to—or worse, complicit in—actual genocidal practices. This reflects a deeper problem in the way language and moral categories are weaponized in political discourse. The term “genocide” becomes emptied of its historical and ethical weight, deployed instead as a rhetorical tool to delegitimize political opponents. In this perverse logic, the very concept of genocide is rendered meaningless, which in turn makes the real thing more acceptable, more palatable. The accusation of genocide becomes a cynical maneuver, a way of maintaining power rather than a genuine concern for the lives at stake.
In the bottom left quadrant, the “Libertarian Left,” we encounter “Everything is theft except actual theft, which is fine.” This statement, in its simplicity, exposes the contradictions at the heart of libertarian socialist thought. The critique of property and capital often takes on a moralistic tone, where every instance of economic exchange is viewed through the lens of theft. Yet, when confronted with actual theft—whether it be the exploitation of labor or the expropriation of land—this moral outrage is conspicuously absent. The concept of theft is thus ideologically neutered, stripped of its radical potential and reduced to a vague sense of injustice that never fully confronts the realities of economic exploitation.
Finally, in the bottom right quadrant, the “Libertarian Right,” we find “Everything is slavery except actual slavery, which is fine.” This encapsulates the libertarian paradox, where the rhetoric of freedom is employed to justify conditions of extreme unfreedom. The libertarian critique of state intervention often hinges on the idea that any form of regulation or taxation is a form of slavery. Yet, when faced with actual conditions of servitude—whether in the form of wage slavery, debt bondage, or human trafficking—this critique evaporates. The obsession with abstract freedom blinds the libertarian to the concrete realities of exploitation, making them complicit in the very forms of slavery they claim to oppose.
The Ideological Suspension of Ethics
What unites all these quadrants is a common thread of ideological perversion, where moral and political categories are evacuated of their meaning and repurposed to serve the interests of power. In each case, the most extreme example of the issue at hand—whether it be revisionism, genocide, theft, or slavery—is rendered invisible, precisely because acknowledging it would undermine the ideological coherence of the position. This is what Žižek refers to as the “ideological suspension of ethics,” where the most egregious violations of moral principles are tolerated, if not outright endorsed, in the name of maintaining ideological purity.
This suspension of ethics is not merely a theoretical concern but has real-world consequences. It allows for the perpetuation of violence and exploitation under the guise of ideological consistency. The leftist who denounces revisionism while engaging in it, the right-winger who decries genocide while committing it, the libertarian who bemoans theft while profiting from it, and the anarcho-capitalist who condemns slavery while upholding it—all are participants in a broader ideological project that seeks to maintain the status quo by inverting the very values it claims to uphold.
Conclusion: Towards a Radical Re-engagement with Ethics
The challenge before us, then, is to break free from this ideological capture and to re-engage with ethics in a way that refuses the false equivalences and moral inversions that dominate contemporary discourse. This requires a radical rethinking of our political categories, a willingness to confront the contradictions in our own positions, and a commitment to the difficult work of ethical consistency.
In the end, the political compass before us is not just a satire of ideological absurdities but a mirror reflecting the deep contradictions and moral failures of our time. It calls on us to recognize the ways in which we, too, are complicit in these failures and to strive towards a more honest and ethical engagement with the world. In this sense, the image is not merely a critique of others but a challenge to ourselves: can we confront the actual revisionism, genocide, theft, and slavery that persist in our world, or will we continue to find comfort in the ideological lies that make these horrors “fine”?
In typical Žižekian fashion, this analysis exposes the ideological mechanisms at play, revealing how moral and political categories are often manipulated to sustain power structures, rather than to challenge them. The image thus serves as a starting point for a broader critique of contemporary politics, one that demands a more rigorous and ethical approach to the issues we face.
In the contemporary landscape of intellectual discourse, a peculiar phenomenon has emerged: abstractions, once lean and limber, are now excessively pumped up, their muscles bulging with the aid of intellectual steroids. The modern theorist, driven by the insatiable hunger for recognition and authority, has resorted to augmenting their conceptual frameworks to the point of grotesque hypertrophy. This essay will explore the implications of this trend, where the very fabric of sense-making is distorted by a culture of intellectual enhancement and dishonesty.
At its core, the intellectual steroid is the infusion of grandiloquent jargon and complex terminologies designed to mask the shallowness of one’s arguments. These inflated abstractions are akin to bodybuilders who, in their quest for perfection, turn to performance-enhancing drugs to achieve an idealized physique. Just as the bodybuilder’s muscles are not a genuine reflection of their natural strength but a contrived image of potency, so too are these abstractions a veneer of depth, concealing a lack of substantive insight.
This phenomenon is not merely about adopting complex terminology; it is an entire aesthetic of pretense. It is about creating a façade of intellectual rigor where none exists, a form of cognitive posturing that seeks to dazzle rather than enlighten. The discourse is less about genuine understanding and more about the performance of understanding, a spectacle where the intellectual athlete flexes their conceptual muscles to an audience eager for validation.
The Lie of Intellectual Enhancement
The core of this critique lies in the deception inherent in these intellectual enhancements. The steroids of abstraction do not merely inflate ideas; they fabricate a lie about their true nature. The intellectual athletes, much like their bodybuilding counterparts, are complicit in a charade. They present their enhanced concepts as if they are the product of natural intellectual prowess, whereas, in reality, they are the result of artifice and contrivance.
This dishonesty is not without consequence. It leads to a distortion of the very sense-making processes that underpin our understanding of the world. When intellectual frameworks are artificially inflated, they do not merely mislead; they undermine the capacity for genuine critical engagement. The inflated abstractions, by their very nature, become resistant to scrutiny. They are designed to be impervious to critique, operating in a realm where the absurdity of their claims is obscured by their ostentatious appearance.
The Impact on Sense-Making
The impact of this intellectual enhancement is profound. Sense-making, the process by which we interpret and understand the world, becomes fundamentally skewed. When abstractions are pumped up with steroids, they are no longer capable of providing clear, actionable insights. Instead, they obfuscate and confuse, creating a landscape where clarity is sacrificed for the sake of spectacle.
The steroidal abstraction operates within a logic of excess and distortion, where the goal is not to elucidate but to impress. The result is a proliferation of intellectual products that are superficially engaging but fundamentally hollow. This hollowing out of content is not merely a passive byproduct; it is an active element of the strategy. By presenting ideas in a manner that appears sophisticated but is, in essence, empty, the intellectual elite maintains a monopoly over knowledge while denying others the means to engage with genuine understanding.
In contemporary discourse, we are increasingly confronted with a peculiar phenomenon: the denial of ideology in the very moment of its most aggressive assertion. This paradox is most evident in the popular claim that certain political or economic positions are “devoid of ideology.” Such claims are not merely erroneous; they are symptomatic of a deeper ideological function, one that conceals its own operations behind a façade of neutrality and objectivity.
To understand this, we must first recognize that the very notion of being “devoid of ideology” is itself an ideological position. It is not an absence but a presence—a presence that disavows itself, thereby rendering its influence all the more pervasive. The denial of ideology is perhaps the most insidious form of ideology, for it presents itself as the neutral ground of common sense, the universal vantage point from which all other perspectives are judged. By claiming to transcend ideology, it situates itself as the ultimate arbiter of truth, dismissing alternative views as mere deviations from the norm.
Consider, for instance, the rhetoric of being “pro-Western, pro-private property, and pro-tradition.” These positions are often presented as self-evident, as though they were the natural outcomes of reasoned thought rather than the products of specific historical and ideological developments. The “pro-Western” stance, in particular, is frequently articulated as a defense of civilization against barbarism, a bulwark of democracy and human rights. Yet, this position is deeply rooted in a Eurocentric narrative that obscures the colonial violence and exploitation upon which the so-called “West” was built.
To be “pro-Western” is, therefore, not merely to support a set of values but to endorse a historical trajectory that has systematically marginalized and oppressed non-Western cultures. It is to align oneself with an ideology that privileges the experiences and perspectives of the West, while dismissing or trivializing the experiences of others. This is not an objective stance but an ideological one, steeped in the legacies of imperialism and domination.
Similarly, the “pro-private property” position is often framed as a defense of individual freedom and economic efficiency. Yet, this framing ignores the deeply ideological nature of property rights themselves, which are not natural or self-evident but the product of specific social and legal arrangements. Property, in this context, is not merely a material possession but a social relation, one that is fundamentally about power and control. The defense of private property, therefore, is not a neutral stance but an ideological commitment to a particular mode of social organization—one that privileges capital over labor, the wealthy over the poor.
What is perhaps most striking about the “pro-private property” position is the way it conceals its own historical contingency. The idea that property rights are sacrosanct is a relatively recent invention, one that emerged in tandem with the rise of capitalism. By presenting this idea as timeless and universal, proponents of private property obscure the fact that it is an ideological construct, one that serves the interests of a specific class at the expense of others.
The invocation of “tradition” adds another layer to this ideological edifice. To be “pro-tradition” is often to resist change, to cling to established norms and values in the face of new challenges. Yet, tradition is itself a constructed category, one that is constantly being reinterpreted and reimagined. What is presented as “tradition” is often a selective memory, a nostalgic idealization of the past that ignores the complexities and contradictions of history.
The appeal to tradition, then, is not a neutral or apolitical act. It is an ideological move that seeks to legitimize existing power structures by invoking the authority of the past. By appealing to tradition, one is not merely defending a set of practices or beliefs but asserting a particular vision of society, one that privileges continuity over change, stability over transformation. This is an inherently conservative stance, one that resists the disruptions and dislocations of modernity in favor of a comforting, if illusory, return to a simpler time.
What these positions—pro-Western, pro-private property, pro-tradition—share is a common strategy of disavowal. Each claims to be devoid of ideology, yet each is deeply ideological in its own right. By denying their own ideological character, they seek to impose themselves as the natural, common-sense alternatives to more “ideological” positions. This is the ultimate ideological move: to present one’s own ideology as the absence of ideology, as the neutral ground upon which all others must be judged.
In this sense, the denial of ideology is itself a form of ideological mystification. It functions to obscure the power relations and historical contingencies that underlie supposedly “natural” or “neutral” positions. By claiming to be devoid of ideology, these positions reinforce the very ideological structures they purport to transcend. They naturalize what is contingent, universalize what is particular, and render invisible the operations of power that sustain them.
In conclusion, the rhetoric of being “devoid of ideology” is not merely a false claim; it is a profoundly ideological one. It serves to conceal the ideological underpinnings of certain positions, while simultaneously asserting them as natural and universal truths. To challenge this rhetoric is not simply to expose its falsity but to reveal the ideological structures that it seeks to obscure. In this way, we can begin to dismantle the ideologies that present themselves as ideology-free, and to uncover the hidden power relations that they seek to legitimize.
