For the purpose of neutrality, I will denationalise this, so that neither myself, nor anyone else, is clouded by a bias. I hope you can do this too, as it would make for better exploration of the phenomenom. We all know that great acts of 'evil' do not just happen. As with all things, there is always the culpable, esp if you believe in personal responsibility. However, while one person can carry out individual acts of evil, for it to evolve into a nation's psyche or policy, takes a lot more than that, it takes layers of different people, each probably complicit and culpable, to varying degrees. And that is what I wish to look at, who is most culpable, and to what degree of the others? Just imagine a neutral land in your mind, and a neutral people, don't make them one thing or the other, that is not the purpose. Think of them as a blank canvas. Now, lest that nation evolves into one that is clearly rogue, dangerous, and evil even, let us look at some of those we could feasibly put on 'trial', as being most responsible. Perhaps you could offer comments on each? Anyway; Is it the architect of the original doctrines/concepts, who perhaps wrote them down? After all, had they not been the genesis, one could argue the idea may never have gotten any further? Is it those who took the idea on, in full, or altered, and brought it to life, be that the early activists for it, or those that later became it's leaders? Is it those who clearly knew what they represented, yet, despite knowing that there was a dark underbelly, they gave it their vocal support and otherwise? After all, without at least a fair % of people onside, the activists would remain minor. Is it those, perhaps not because they believe in the political doctrine, but for some vested interest, provide the funds they will need, if they wish to flourish? After all, without it, they would find it hard to reach enough people, anyway. Is it those that follow orders that they know to be unethical and questionable, once the regime has gained power? After all, without those to do that, any orders you give remain words. Is it those who are well aware what they represent, but remain silent, either out of fear, social pressure, or a quiet life? Yes, ALL are complicit, of course, I am sure it is a mix of all of the above. But which can lay claim to the dubious honour of being most so? Jack
That's a good question. It is mostly the fault of the alien hybrids who wish to dominate and feed off of humanity. Possibly. It is the fault of a combination of all you listed, but it is a symptom of collective energy, property, and needs delegated to a central power. Sociopaths take the lead of this unnatural monopoly of law and force. It allows them to break all of the common laws that individuals find to be obvious and humane.
For sure, I would say you are along the right lines in saying that it is attractive to those of a sociopathic nature, to winkle their way into positions of unbridled power. Often people do not understand what a true psychopath/sociopath really is, or how common they are, the most dangerous are actually the high functioning one's, and it is they who are most likely to be attracted to something which is/or can be made to be a reflection really, of what their mind is. I think when people think of psychopaths, they still have an image of Norman Bates, or some such thing, or that they can be found inside psychiatric units, which is true for those that are low performing. But the high performing one's are those that people call 'elites' or those that have the desire to exploit and dominate, both other nations, and people in their own nation. Because they can be charming and sound plausible, and add to that the network of staff that they have to make them sound even more so, not only can they pass themselves off as legitimate leaders, but as ordinary family men, as well. The general public have long been taken in, often by the same tricks. I would see, as a rough est, that about 90% of people revere that which is being presented to them as the 'voice of authority'. I base this on the 90% or so that during experiments like the Asch experiment, and that of the Milgram experiment & Stanford prison experiment, that approx nine in ten were, to a fair to total degree, not able to think for themselves, and willing to devolve responsibility to 'authority'. This means that approx 10% would not. And it is that 10% that I would be most interested in. Jack
Precisely. I don't think you can count on a "majority" to make a good decision about who is a psychopath, or anything else for that matter. So, where does that leave democracy? As a bad idea it seems. I've actually seen a convincing argument recently that a monarchy has a better chance of being a just and prosperous society than a democracy. A monarchy or dictatorship does not have to pander to a crowd, and you might happen to get a good one. That's basically why I support the idea of a Republic with basic laws rather than a democracy. Republicans over democrats, even though neither really represent what their name suggests here in the home of the brave.
Not a monarchy, as this merely shows undeserving entitlement, and, historically, they do not have a stellar rep, when given a free reign. However, I do believe that the present system lends itself only, at best, to choosing between two options, both of whom are mediocre, career politicians, and in the pocket of the rich. That is not democratic, one cannot have any trust, or feel good for the future, under that system, and of course, there are those who want to convince you it has to be that way, but no, they are misleading you - it doesn't.
Just LOOK how easily idiots are manipulated... [video=youtube;TYIh4MkcfJA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA[/video]
Is it the architect of the original doctrines/concepts, who perhaps wrote them down? After all, had they not been the genesis, one could argue the idea may never have gotten any further? Is it those who took the idea on, in full, or altered, and brought it to life, be that the early activists for it, or those that later became it's leaders? Is it those who clearly knew what they represented, yet, despite knowing that there was a dark underbelly, they gave it their vocal support and otherwise? After all, without at least a fair % of people onside, the activists would remain minor. Is it those, perhaps not because they believe in the political doctrine, but for some vested interest, provide the funds they will need, if they wish to flourish? After all, without it, they would find it hard to reach enough people, anyway. Is it those that follow orders that they know to be unethical and questionable, once the regime has gained power? After all, without those to do that, any orders you give remain words. Is it those who are well aware what they represent, but remain silent, either out of fear, social pressure, or a quiet life? Yes, ALL are complicit, of course, I am sure it is a mix of all of the above. But which can lay claim to the dubious honour of being most so?
---From an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that most people should prefer to follow. If we lived in a world of leaders nothing would get done, as everyone would insist on their own method. Anything requiring ingenuity and manpower could not be accomplished. The question as I see it though, is how do we break people's inclination to divest themselves of power and, in turn, invest that power into an authority, without creating a world of know-it-alls and Napoleons? ---The capacity to lead is latent in more people that I believe we give credit for. A lot are marginalized or are lacking some essential ingredient that would allow the full expression of this dormant capacity. Really if you look at history, the infamous have typically possessed an exciting mixture of strong character traits. Reflecting on powerful leaders of the past can lead one to believe that the hordes of "common men" are more innocent than they actually are. With breaking technologies in criminal science and the rapid proliferation of global news, we are now getting a peak inside of the "common man". Really, for the first time in history the pedestrian is getting a lot of attention for being as cruel, petty and sadistic as infamous, powerful leaders. ---I don't believe the masses have been given proper credit for how devious and self-centered they are. The narrative of the world has always been about fantastic figures (good and bad) leading faceless mobs of people into glory or infamy. Even when examination of a period in time delves deeper than its reigning figureheads, consummate evil is described as cultural" or "societal". The tools of modern criminal science, though, have really shined a light on how dark the mind of an average human being can be, and how often that is unfortunately the case. ---How this all relates to your op, in my opinion, is this way. If the endless horrors perpetrated by common men were to be compared to an unfocused beam of light, than politics and government agency is a device by which that light is focused into laser precision, with which the innate self-centered inclination of men (which results in so much evil) can be wielded to devastating effect.
Have you, I wonder, even heard of Gustave Le Bon? He was one of the first people to write with any accuracy on the matter of herd control, using psychological techniques. There are those, if malevolent and rich enough, who know how primal the mass can be, and they know how to feed it. For example, they may consider things like greed, racism, etc, and understand that they are able to harness this, whip it up, and aim it at a given target, usually those least able to fight back, or defend themselves. For instance, it was never going to take much encouragement for some Americans to run with their hate of Muslims, since the psyche of racism is still, imo, at the forefront of many Americans today, not all, but a big enough % to be something that stringpullers could use. It became unfashionable to be open in your hatred of blacks in the US, so, handily for the common or garden racist, the state just mandated one billion people that they could be racist against. The average American that rants on about Muslims, usually knows little about geo-politics, let alone Islam, but the people are brown, and therefore, fair game to be racist about, dressed up as something else. And the US Gov endorse it, just as they once endorsed racism against blacks, as policy. You need only look at the number of conflicts the US have had, involving non white countries v white countries, to see that there is certainly a racial pattern. Not saying it is the only motivator, but A motivator, not saying there are no exceptions to the rule, because there are, but by and large, I believe I am right.
---No I have no heard of Gustave Le Bon. I will look him up. I agree with where you are coming from. I don't think it takes much effort to persuade someone to do something they might be inclined to do, anyway. As far as racial motivators in specifics, I always give a nod of dark mirth at the idea the only people nuked in WWII were the only non-white combatants. Sometimes it seems the nature of things can be unavoidable.
Gustave Le Bon (7 May 1841 – 13 December 1931) was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. He was the author of several works in which he expounded theories of national traits, racial superiority, herd behavior and crowd psychology. His work on crowd psychology became important during the first half of the twentieth century when it was used by media researchers such as Hadley Cantril and Herbert Blumer to describe the reactions of subordinate groups to media. It is arguable that the fascist theories of leadership that emerged during the 1920s owed much to Le Bon's theories of crowd psychology. At the same time, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf drew largely on the propaganda techniques proposed in Le Bon's 1895 book. In addition, Benito Mussolini made a careful study of Le Bon's crowd psychology book, apparently keeping the book by his bedside. Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, was influenced by Le Bon and Trotter. In his famous book Propaganda, he declared that a major feature of democracy was the manipulation of the mass mind by media and advertising. Theodore Roosevelt, as well as many other American progressives in the early 20th century, were also deeply affected by Le Bon's writings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon
Pleasure. Here is something else, related actually, which you may want to read.. http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/278716-what-we-entrusting-ourselves.html Also [video=youtube;FG4mOpQpmpw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG4mOpQpmpw&feature=player_embedded[/video]
---Very interesting. I don't know what to say at the moment. You've had more time to think about it. What is your take?
I don't trust psychiatry, and believe we have given way too much credence, and even legal power to it. I think it has an extremely dark history, and is often guilty of colluding with rogue Gov's, to deem anyone that they wish to demonise, as being 'mentally ill'.
---It brings mass murderers to mind, for me. Whenever I hear "they must be crazy", it goes against my gut instinct. Crazy is often a term for "against the status qua". It conjures faces like that of Charles Manson, who is essentially a caricature of "crazy". Very different man, very different mind, but fully aware and calculating. The last thing from a psychological break from reality (which I've had the unpleasant experience of approaching).
