Rulers Seek to Rule
Rulers seek to rule. Well, that seems a bit obvious, doesn’t it? And yet, time after time, we elect new leaders, imagining that, “This new group will be better—they’ll represent us as they promised.”
Unfortunately, the democratic system doesn’t really work very well at all. The idea is supposed to be that if old leaders overstep their bounds, new candidates may come forth who promise a reversal of the autocracy of the previous group, and we elect them. They will then proceed to implement that reversal.
Of course, we all know that it’s this last bit that consistently fails to happen. The new group does not fulfil its promises to the electorate—in fact, it almost invariably seeks to increase its power over them. And as each group assumes greater power than the previous one, the country slowly declines, until ultimately, it reaches the state of tyranny.
But what is at the heart of this process? Why on earth does it never seem to happen that the new leaders actually diminish their power and become true representatives of those who elected them? Surely, we must get a few good leaders once in a while.
To answer this question, let’s have another look at that title, at the top of the page…
Rulers seek to rule. Ruling is not a side issue; it is not a by-product. It is their very purpose. It is the reason they ran for elected office.
But then, why do better, less-obsessed people not run? Well, they occasionally do, mostly at the lower levels of public office, where they soon find that politics is a nasty business and that their fellow office-holders detest them for their integrity. In effect, they find themselves isolated, much like New York policeman Frank Serpico—a lamb amongst vipers. In such an environment, it’s unlikely that a “good guy” will last long.
There arises the occasional Ron Paul, a beacon in the night, but the Ron Pauls are rare and even more rarely attain high office. Instead, those who are most likely to pursue public office and most likely to remain there are those that most desire to rule.
So, if we follow this reasoning along, who within a given society doesmost want to rule? Well, clearly, those who are the most obsessive in their desire to control others. Even more so if they possess this desire to a pathological degree.
In a small jurisdiction, this is less pronounced, because there are fewer people to run for office. The larger the country, the greater the likelihood that those who are pathological will not only come forward, but will do whatever it takes to succeed. Their odds of initial and continued success are therefore far greater than those of the “good” candidates.
If the above reasoning is correct, we’d find our legislatures full of pathological people.
In a large country, all candidates, in all parties, might well answer this description, resulting in a virtual guarantee that the top spots would be filled by those who are pathological. (Estimates hold that approximately 6.2% of any population are likely to be narcissistic. Sociopaths are at 4%.)
So, let’s test this out. Let’s look at a list of character traits of each of these psychopathies and ask ourselves if the descriptions fit any (or all) of our rulers.
Narcisism
- Grandiose sense of self-importance
- Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success and power
- Requires excessive admiration
- Has a pronounced sense of entitlement
- Is exploitative of others
- Demonstrates arrogant, haughty behaviour
Sociopathy
- Superficial charm and good intelligence
- Untruthfulness and insincerity
- Lack of remorse and shame
- Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
- Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
In examining the traits above and comparing them to the traits we observe in our political leaders, we no longer wonder why our leaders are not more truthful, more reliable, more representative, less arrogant, etc. In fact, in any given situation, we can expect overreach from leaders in each of the following categories:
- An assumed right to power (over both the electorate and other sovereign states)
- Extreme lack of concern for truth or integrity (Reality becomes whatever the leader has most recently decided it is)
- Lack of true concern for the electorate on any level (although “concern” may very well be pretended)
- Inconsistency and unreliability in actions and policymaking
- Fascination with opportunities for armed conflict (both domestic and international)
- Carelessness in the sacrifice of the lives of others in combat situations (Armed conflict is an interesting game, rather than an unfortunate necessity)
What is “the Great Reset”?
The Great Reset is a massively funded, desperately ambitious, internationally coordinated project led by some of the biggest multinational corporations and financial players on the planet and carried out by cooperating state bodies and NGOs. Its soul is a combination of early 20th century science fiction, idyllic Soviet posters, the obsessiveness of a deranged accountant with a gambling addiction—and an upgraded, digital version of “Manifest Destiny.”
The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust—but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as “their limited resources.” Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air—literally—while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with “behavioral modification,” a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful “privilege”).
The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet. I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you. Just ants and numbers, your assets.
Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions: one, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology)—and two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest “science.” The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital anxiety and precision—all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability. The king’s world feels far more predictable and relaxed when the chaos of human subjectivity is contained for good.
In other words, it’s an “efficient” global feudalism that goes much farther than its medieval brother since the scanner is all-seeing: every person, every mineral, and every berry is digitally tagged and tracked. Under that framework, every peasant has a function that is derived not from the mystery of life, and not from their inner calling—but from AI, the master of efficiency and the servant of the king. Ideally, the peasants can be convinced that it’s good for them (or necessary to be safe, see “contact tracing”) and that this is what progress and happiness are like—but if not, there are other ways, from classic violence to virtual prisons to “morality pills.”
No comments:
Post a Comment