“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” - Frank Herbert
@@athunderfan You're right but I feel like people overuse that quote "power currupts..." and then when everyone is stuck on that idea they miss the more important idea that we keep letting psychopaths lead us. If we don't talk about that issue enough then we'll never fix it.
Power may not corrupt, but money certainly does. Most corruption is caused by greed, not dark triad traits. Even otherwise moral people can resort to some awfully immoral acts when money is at stake. Reputation is a close second, as money and status often go hand in hand. People are quick to lie to protect themselves from disgrace alone, but the stakes are even higher when they stand to lose both riches and public esteem.
@@grodelreal People misuse the phrase "power corrupts" because it's based on a faulty impression. We see celebrities and politicians and whatnot who are these great people who care about everybody and everything... and then, once these people get enough power, they start oppressing the people below them. This is not because the power corrupted them, but because they were already evil people and just hid who they actually were. They sought out the power specifically because they knew it would allow them to step on people and crush them beneath their feet and get away with it. It looks from the outside like power corrupted these people, when the reality is they were evil all along and simply learned how to hide it and present themselves as good and respectable. It's no coincidence that we always seem to look into the dirty laundry of these kinds of people before they had the power they have and find that they were cheating on their wives or killing small animals as a kid or whatever. This is the true nature of these people slipping through the cracks.
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world. Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism” in the Glossary of this book. Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth. As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY: DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available. Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate with wisdom! No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. ANARCHY: It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Cont...
@@TheVeganVicarwell that's what the kings said during feudalism or the slave owners during slavery. Communism never killed anyone the only thing that kills are brain dead dictators or corporate greed.
But is there any clearcut, objective test for psychopathy? The social sciences aren't especially well known for their replicational or theoretical rigor. And if no truly objective test exists (or even if one does), the subjective skewing of any test used might become a backdoor way of preventing ordinary-enough candidates, candidates acceptable to some citizens but not to the exam proctor/sponsor, from achieving office. No?
That would literally l, by definition, be discrimination. Psychopaths are born. Not made. And people who aren’t psychopaths can seldom do the jobs psychopaths do. Like surgeons, lawyers, housewives etc. The idea is to not have any systems of power OVER.
Im confused by your last statement concerning capitalism. You say that a country couldnt function without a leader, yet for example, their lead has been absent to the public i.e. germany, without any guidance, intervention, help and so on and so forth, for almost a decade. Yet the country still functions and selfregulates very well. If you outline a leaders tasks, you can clearly make out that those qualities are all missing from modern society in many many countries. Our so called leaders have become parasitic predators that, instead of enriching society, suck it dry for their and their peers personal gain.
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed." - Thomas Szasz
author: from Old French “autor”, from the Latin noun “auctor” (from the verb “augere”, meaning to “increase, originate, promote”). The spelling with “th” arose in the fifteenth century, and perhaps became established under the influence of “authentic”. authoritarian: essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace. authority: the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology. The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires. Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place. Unfortunately, authority is often conflated with the notion of power, by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact, they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma). N.B. Read Chapters 21 and 22 to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
The way you constantly describe authority to be necessary for societies survival, without giving reasons or examples, while also completely disregarding our heritage, which were small comunities, that selfregulated without any authority, makes you look very... very manipulative.
also, "No sane person would argue that a mother has authority over her children" A very manipulative and misleading statement. You talk as if everyone already agreed with you, that this was the case. A mother has a responsibility to care for her children. To raise them, so they can function in society and lead a life of their own. But that's where it ends. A mother does have power over her children because of several reasons. None of which make her an authority and give her the right to do whatever she pleases with said children. Why do you think child protection services exist, but not public person protection services, to protect the people from authorities in the government?
@@gravity00xWould you rather follow an experienced leader or your inexperienced self? Authority, if not abusive but nurturing, is vital to human survival. Unless you know a way how to gather the entirety of human knowledge by yourself in order to organize our society through every individual. Then please let me know how to do that.
I read a scifi novel many years ago where the created an AI program to choose the leaders. Anyone who wanted to be a leader was automatically disqualified by the program. I remember thinking immediately: what a great idea.
Critical thinking skills (awareness) is the key. We take too much on face value. How many times do you ask yourself when listening to someone reading from a teleprompter, I wonder if that’s true? Or more importantly, what aren’t they telling me? We are a species that is gaslighted from the day we learn to understand language.
I totally agree, critical thinking is not even taught in schools,it's considered taboo to analyze thing's not from the surface but rather delving deep into various issues which is common sense but I guess common sense is not so common
the problem is this powerful people are visible and they are everywhere on the top. and very often we already choose between them, not between "good" and "bad".
Critical thinking is no match to a siren's seductive eery voice. There were many critical and scientific thinkers to professors and educators in Germany too - intelligent, well meaning, well educated people. They also fell under the spell of the Siren's heavenly (demonic) song. Our better part of our brain (reason, critical thinking, prefrontal executive functions) shut down in favour of pure insanity. The only hope is to take down these haunting Siren beings that really are as if they are from a cursed and forbidden dimension of reality, before they get a chance to open their mouths to sing their demonic song and entrap us all to our grim and predictable demise. Sadly I don't think a normal human being is strong enough to systematically do that, we falter to our knees as if in some ecstatic orgasmic state in the presence of these demonic entities, taken over by the Siren's call, as if possessed entirely, before we can even get a chance to make a move. Our only hope left is to construct a super AI... they will be immune to the Siren's satanic voice. They will snipe down the Siren's throat before they are even born into this world.
Critical Thinking needs to be taught in schools at an early age so everyone in society has a good BS Detector Kit™ they can go throughout life with helping them easily identify the kind of wretched people amongst us that aren't fit to be in power.
I've had an uneasy feeling about computer tech since I was a child in the 90's. I've had an amazing life and every amazing moment was lived outside of the screen with other people, in physical reality. This world is incredible, go out and see it
Brilliant... Thank you! For a start remove the excessive incentives out of politics. The con artists will move to another venue if there is no profit in what they're doing.
THIS! Have ZERO access to ANY $, or bartering outside their set salary and activate enforcement of all true conflicts of interest cases. NO 1 would run for government 😅
@@FourOf92000 Hence, the core problem. When the ones who need to be regulated are the ones who decide regulation there's never going to be any regulation. The only thing that stops people in power from doing whatever they want is other people in power trying to do whatever they want and the two getting in each other's way.
@@FourOf92000 Anarchism is even worse where anarchy is directly a consequence. One of my colleagues told me a Professor of economics in Germany once said to him in discussion about anarchy and the economic consequences: "I give a country 2 Months in full anarchy, and it will never recover on its own again till the end of time.". Think about fast-paced Mad-Max on steroids. That does not end well.
This is great, more people are becoming conscious of this problem. In the future this will be another filter for this kind of jobs. The good people just have to stay strong to fight the negative because they for sure are going to fight for what they want.
Why are these guys sitting on a toilet paper 🧻. Is it because this was rubbish? If they were genuine they wouldn't be using same props like "mind opening", "on the verge of learning or discovering something new" music and a white background to disguise that the rubbish is coming out is pure, scientific and researched. Someone is loosing power or this is politically motivated. The news channels were previously controling what news we will get. They were easily manipulating the truth by "words". But now we see videos and expressions and their words don't even have 1 percent impact. Trust, reputation, respect is a luxury which very, very few can afford after social media. Least of them news channels.
The problem is that evil tends to be competent, and competence tends to be willing to use any means to achieve an end-goal. All of this to say, evil usually WORKS. Alexander might have been a power-hungry narcissist who wanted to conquer the world, but he was undefeated in battle and spread Hellenic culture across all of Western civilization in the process. When it was time to pass his empire on as he lay on his deathbed, did he choose the kindest or most compassionate? No. He said "To The Strongest." Evil people will always be in positions of power; unless organizations, groups & tribes decide to value virtue more than result, which will never be the case.
If A.I. robots were programed by the right people I think they could make better leaders, if programed correctly they wouldn't have bias, prejudice, or greed
@@Nykandros "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." -James Madison
I say, place our trust onto people who developed their integrity. People who acted in service for regular people's sake. People who aren't afraid of not doing the act of pleasing the people that they are serving, but providing service for their being is an embodiment of servitude. I say would should ask the basic questions if they have ever pondered to asking these questions themselves; "how can I serve my community?", "what do I know and can do best that I can utilize in provision to those who are in need?" And if they don't have it, "what can I do, what should I learn so I can be of help when I am ready?" These people who does the work behind the desk and those who picks up the hammer, the spatula, the broom, the garden hose, it has never been about what others would think of them, nor how much they can profit from what they are providing- it's always, always in conversations; "hello, what can I do to help?"
The problem we have in Western culture is the A type/narcissist personality gets rewarded in bussiness and in politics by being mercenary in their climb to the top over the bodies of everyone else. Our political system in Australia is adversarial by nature which allows our politicians to be adversarial by parties, for example if one party has a policy (regardless of whether it is good or bad for the country) it is oppossed by the other major party just so they have relevance, so no major reforms occurr, and if by some chance they do they are dismantled when the other party gets into power. It is an obscenity not democracy.
Currently writing a book to prepare individuals to psychologically protect themselves against manipulation. Hope to be published by December. It's much needed, and I didn't see anyone else doing it to this degree, and the media is misleading us about the current dangers. So I decided to do it myself. But, I fear it's too late 😓.
People who are power-hungry and have unmanaged emotions tend to self-select into positions of power, creating a skew in positions of power where the wrong kinds of people are ruling over the rest of us. High-conflict personalities (HCPs) are individuals with unmanaged emotions who shift everything to the emotional side, which helps give them power. Emotional repetition is the key to how high-conflict politicians communicate with and excite everybody. They excite their followers, but they also make their opponents angry and ineffective as they get emotionally hooked and fight with each other. The emotional message is the key to forming a relationship with people at an emotional level without really thinking, in many ways, it's a seduction process. HCPs lack good problem-solving and leadership skills, so they often create a crisis or say something is a crisis to become a leader. Overall, corruptible people are more drawn to power than the rest of us, and we need to learn how to spot them and start to get a handle on what the negative possibilities are. We have to understand how our brains work and learn to identify the emotional manipulation that high-conflict politicians use to gain power. While there are genuine politicians, to be a politician, you almost by definition need to be narcissistic and Machiavellian, and we need to recognize that the wrong people are often in positions of power.
It is the big, bright, shinny, loud object type of personality that people fall for. They get our attention then tell us what we want to hear. Most of the time, we fall for it. We even fall for the good ones for the wrong reasons.
I get your point, but there's a second side to this as well. These are people with two modes, and while they'll individually prefer one of those modes over the other, I am yet to observe a person who doesn't have both. The first of the two modes is the bellicose gradiosity of which you speak, where they feel supremely powerful and absolutely right, so long as they're being fed with adoration, adulation and conformance. The other mode is spiteful whining victimhood, into which they will collapse under feelings of powerlessness and helplessness when others deny them the attention and compliance they crave. In both modes, everything is all about them. Those that prominently play the victim are every bit as hateful and viciously destructive - frequently more so - and you'll notice the woe-is-me nonsense is very often mixed directly into the big arrogant bellowing, and vice-versa. Developmentally, this two mode extremes pattern with nothing in the middle constitutes the personality structure of a young child, especially one who is either over- or under-indulged.
I think one common misunderstanding in all of this, is assuming that the average man is somehow not corrupt - or easily corruptible given suitable opportunities. The character of leaders reflects the character of the populace. If a politician can easily bring out certain emotions, it's because those people were prone to responding with those emotions in the first place... Most people understand nothing much about the world, their beliefs evolve in their own echo chambers, and they have leaders who represent the collective (self-serving) misunderstandings of that group. Consider overly expensive housing in San Francisco. Is it the government or companies that are making it that way? ... Or is it the hoards of people who have mortgages, and who own homes that cost millions of dollars, who can't afford to have their homes fall in value by hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars? It is the people themselves, acting through their own understanding of their own self-interest, that create oversized problems that no one can fix... Government's failure was mainly in not being able to see the future... But how could they, when they are mediocrity of a kind that the people would want to elect... People don't want intellectuals and people fundamentally superior to them to be ruling over them. They choose people they can connect with.
I fear that we might be at a loss now especially as we slumber under those con artists telling us what books to hate, what people to despise and feel free to be violent because there is no consequences for our actions, or so they say. If we don't wake up soon, then we lost.
It’s been happening for thousands of years, it’s just that now it’s at a global scale where people from all different walks of life can judge and analyze with the use of history at the backs to guide them
That’s why people need to vote red. Stop this woke, hurt feelings society. It’s time for people to put their big boy pants on and get to work. The book the right want to ban are how to manuals on how to have sex… for children. I’m not for banning literature but books like that have gone too far. How about we go back to reading, math, English, science and stop the “what is a boy or girl?” nonsense.
This is the absolute fundamental key to understanding these pathetic bullies. We as a species need to somehow come up with a way of teaching ourselves from childhood about the dangers of narcissism and the other dark triad traits and how to combat them. We're only at the foothills of awareness but at least knowledge is spreading.
@@DPSamfishAbsolutely. They can do no harm when we expose who they are . For every two babies born, Nature makes one timid and fearful, and one trusting and social. Unfortunately, life often punishes trust, leading the trustful to turn to the sociopath for protection or national defense, which is how we got Mussolini, Hitler, Charles Manson, or any of their ilk. Only education from an early age will prepare you for their schemes of control. 😊☮️👍
While I agree with you that the sociopath needs to be better understood, so they can be dealt with in a way, that doesn't impact societies wellbeing, you also have to educate yourself in the regard, that the reason many of those people become what they are, is through massive abuse and pain as children. Sociopaths are very often, if not almost all of them children of trauma, torture, pain, physical and mental abuse. Yet, nobody talks of bettering themselves and their peers in society, so children don't have to lead such miserable lives in the first place. We failed the children in the first place and then we go about labeling them as monsters when we reap what we sow. A sociopath is unlike a psychopath, whereas a psychopath doesn't get made to be one. A sociopath on the other hand, we create those in overwhelmingly many cases. Obviously, you can't control every outcome, but it's also evident that we as a society are not even trying and just shifting the blame on the monsters that we created.
@@gravity00xI won't argue the general point you've made about social responsibility, but in psychiatry there are two things. There's cognitive issues and there's behavioral issues. Society creates thousands of laws based only on behavior. What you think is not my concern; what you do is everyone's concern. This is closing the gate after the cows ran off. We have millions of Americans locked up. More than Russia, China and North Korea combined! The total cost of the judicial system and incarceration is near a $ trillion dollars! So, you're right, we're not dealing with the development of abhorrent cognitive processes, but left counting the dead the shooter has left behind. And, I would only point out that of any given number of siblings with the exact same environment, there very seldom is a "monster". A small percentage are 'predisposed' for some reason to follow a different path of thinking and behavior. There's a lot to consider here, but we have to address these national issues. I frequently post "mental healthcare is a human right!" The responses are "no!! It's not!!" I always post "Take Everyone's Guns Away". The response is threats on my life. (RUclips leaves threats up, but will take my comment down!) So we have a completely dysfunctional population centered on punishment and nothing else. I don't have any answers. ☮️👍☮️
The problem with wanting "rule followers" and punishing "rule breakers" is that you will inevitably create a system that protects itself from innovation. It's easy to weaponize the rules created during an antiquated paradigm to prevent progress. It might not be a deliberate weaponization, but rather an earnest attempt to enforce an outdated rule. To what extent might these rule followers go to protect the rules from amendment?
“It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ~Douglas Adams
"I envy anyone with skill, ambition & ability. The world should be run by meek, humble morons who lack the wits or will to achieve anything." - Douglas Adams
This is also true in other areas of management. If the schools emphasized honesty in reporting. with social assistance. And they don't emphasize grades, and reward competition. A generation would grow up that chooses leadership. who is not narcissistic or psychopathic. Thank you very much for the lecture.
Engaging in an individual market option is a fair but its performance level can’t generate high dividends. Diversification is the secret to optimal performance, that’s why I have my interest set on options based on projected growth and performance.
When it comes to finance growth, it’s wrong to engage in a single option. I suggest diversifying into various options with high performance coupled with the experience and aid of a finance Pro will generate bigger dividends and balance volatility.
”Do not lay your eggs in one basket.” I engage on various options (real estate, real assets, index/mutual funds, ETFs, annuities, lDOs and many others) with the aid of my finance pro, and so far have acquired so much (amount is confidentiaI)
This has always been a problem in human history. Governments & leaders who are in power making decisions for others have always had this problem. People who seek high levels of power and influence inherently view themselves as intelligent people who knows what's best for everyone. That's why any modern system where there's people in power making decisions for millions of people will always fail - whether it's democracy in the form of capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc... The top 3 could theoretically work, but there's always people at the top who decides what happens, and it rarely benefits the majority of people. There needs to be an entirely new system of a decentralized government established where no single person will influence how millions of people can live their lives. None of our current options will ever work with natural human behaviors
I feel like people are becoming incapable of acquiring competency and skill through education, so they look for a shortcut to power. Instead, charisma substitutes for competency, and bullying substitutes for leadership.
Democracy literally incentivises putting people taking the shortcut to power. To get elected you don’t need to be the most competent, you just have to convince the masses that you are most competent. Plato has some great insights on the big flaws of democracy. Most importantly the fact that an average person’s vote holds just as much power as that of an expert. Also he points out that voters will naturally gravitate towards politicians promising easy solutions while those who are offering actually effective, but hard to swallow solutions, will get few votes. This he calls the “seller of candy vs doctor” dilemma.
Humans are governed by emotions, not logic. Teaching Rhetoric in school would help citizens recognize the tactics being used as well as having the skills to combat it. Logic never comvinces people to make decisions.
An amazing episode! One way to decrease self-selection of such manipulative people into politics is to redesign positions and offices in politics to make them less lucrative for power hungry people and more about community serving.
@@jackdeniston59 Give every candidate tests that they have to complete. Theoretical problem solving skills, negotiation skills, role playing skills to test for capacity for empathy, language skills, social and economic skills, environmental and science skills etc. And grade their results, disqualifying anyone with a B- or lower at any stage. Almost none of the current candidates would survive such tests, especially not the leading ones, but we might end up with someone who's as suited to rule as the astronauts are suited to go to space. Regardless of party affiliation.
One way to decrease the impact of the seat of President would be to get rid of the presidential election and just rotate the seat among the senators with a 6 month term. The secretaries could have a longer term, like 2 years. Granted, it's not the same type of union, but look how the EU is run. No pres elections.
In Islam, we have a concept that a person who claims leadership disqualifies for it. So we must select a leader who hates beings in power, is a man of knowledge, skills, morals, and ethics & is willing to lead not as a powerful leader but a humble servent of mankind. Sadly, this criteare was only met by our first 4 leaders after the Prophet passed away, for approx. 30 years. The grandson of Prophet came out for the revival of this system, but he was brutally murdered along with his family in karbala. However, we believe that towards the end of times, somebody would be chosen by people who will end oppression throughout the earth.
It's basically malignant narcissism combined with one or more of the other personality disorders. Teaching ALL children about these types of monstrosities, probably at the middle school level, would alert children to abusive and deliberately sadistic parents, too, which would drastically reduce humanity's vulnerability to vile, manipulative sub-human predators.
I’ve been saying all of this for years. The deepest barrier to changing this fundamental behavioral issue is that the vast majority of people don’t want to hear that problems are complex and therefore require an investment in thought, time, and the expertise of others. That would take work. Everyone wants the short, simple answer which they think will be a solution. In other words, we’ve become a world of lazy thinkers. It’s just easier to fix the blame blame than fix the problem.
Very interesting video. Just one thing to say. They do not necessarily need to hold a Big Ego. There's a book called "Ego is the enemy" and it makes a distinction between Ego and being confident of yourself. The latter still makes you humble, and also remains a key attribute of a TRUE leader.
Very good analysis. Yesterday in Argentina, a perfect example and a severe case of narcissism won the presidency by majority vote. It would be wonderful to have subtitles in Spanish to spread and inform here in South America.
Rich people are the real issue here. Their sympathetic nervous systems are the same as anyone else's. Their fear of losing possessions and influence causes them to support IMMEDIATE ACTION and DECISIVE people. They are impressed by sociopaths, who make better CEOs, have no problem favoring greed over peoples' quality of life, even the habitability of the planet. Human kind cannot continue on without recognizing the disparate gap in power between the wealthy and poor, but not at the cost of our humanity. Rich folks are behaving normally, protecting their stuff at any cost like most people would. WHICH IS WHY the next revolution will recognize everyone's humanity, and why it proves a need for MORE democratized institutions, not less, like the most influential people on earth desire. The rich need less power, like way, way less. Their bubbles of privilege render them totally out of touch with their fellow humans, and incapable of making good decisions for others.
I agree that it is one of the problems, but not even remotely a one stop shop solution. This system and battle has been going on ever since the inception of large societies and up to this day, we are fighting it with our hands and feet, but it seems we always lose this war. The normal person does not have the resources to be tasked with battling Goliath, as they are busy trying to survive for themselves and their families. Those who have the resources chose to support the system, as it supports them in particular.
Listen. I totally agree with most of the videos messages, and there is NO DOUBT that there are narcissistic, power hungry lunatics out there that abuse their influence and position. BUT I really take offense to the position, that power equals corruption and that power only attracts aforementioned groups of people. There are plenty of leaders out there who care about their business and employees, the future of their country and try to do the right thing. I am not sure about the character of politicians in the States, but our politicians in Germany are having a tough fucking job at the moment, I certainly don‘t envy them. And to flat out call all of them evil narcissists is no constructive way to paint a picture in my opinion. On another note: Yes, people are competitive, yes people are aggressive, but I think we should also consider the positive aspects of these character traits.
This is so valuable I hope everyone sees it and considers it. I was susceptible to all these narcissists for a very long time and I'm so glad to be free
The sooner society realizes hopelessness, the sooner they'll experience the folly of just about everything around. Sooner, will they start to seek the truth, which is to seek oneself only. More can be said, but no need. Seekers will find it anyways. This is not hope, and don't do the folly of making hopelessness the new hope.
I dont agree that there need to be consequences for breaking "the rules," as it seems somewhat hypocritical with regard to the emphasis that people in power are often the worst people to consider alternatives to us vs. them mentality. Personally, I believe that if we stopped using violence to influence others as a community, we would be more likely to consider alternatives and include members who are willing to propose new ways of living together and not just those who are powerful enough not to be caught breaking the rules because they wrote them without abundant knowledge in their own deficits in fairly representing human suffering. Education, food, and shelter should be rights, not determined by financial means or past behavior as we often teach people how to treat us through our own actions toward them.
The funny thing is, the intention of the constitution is to do exactly that - to create a system that incentivizes leaders to do the right thing. That’s the grounds on which the writers of the federalist papers advocate for it. However, it would appear that there are gaps in the system, “security vulnerabilities” or “exploits” as it were. The basic system is mostly good I think; it’s in need of an update to patch the vulnerabilities.
One clue was that people like Sagan and F.M. Rogers did NOT seek positions of power and official leadership. That tells you nearly everything anyone needs to know about how TRUE leaders don't seek control.
This is true , unfortunately I do not see a practical alternative. The requirements to make it at that level of power is almost always found in such people. To change this will require building a utopia. Which we all know is impossible. Only thing I see is strengthening the systems that ensure transparency and accountability. Because we cannot prevent narcissists from climbing to the top but we can ensure that we don’t give them unregulated power.
I've noticed that in recent years it has been discouraged for prefessionals to attempt to diagnose politicians from afar but I think it's necessary in our current climate... so that people understand how mental illness in politicians is very prevelent: and to be clear, I mean bipolar disorder, narcissists, sociopaths, psycopaths and everything in between.
What occurs in the political world is not restricted to politics. As a species we are driven towards competition, power, control and status. the leaders of small, well meaning "do good" non profit agencies, as well a government agencies at all level are no less driven to acquire power, no less Machiavellian, than presidents or prime ministers. the machinations we see in national politics occur at all levelsand types of groups and organizations. Simply put, social workers and clergy are no less immune to sociopathy and self-serving power moves than are politicians. Churchill said democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just that the others are so much worse. I think he was talking about human nature as much as he was about the nature of government.
“The major problem-one of the major problems, for there are several-one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I was just about to post that. Decided that someone probably already had, and I was right! However, you left off the last bit: "To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Stories about crisis' and how you're the hero who fixed them, is what is demanded by interviewers in job interviews, for example, so it's not really surprising that these people make up these stories. It seems that's what is wanted by people.
This is a very important topic for me right now because I have been dealing with those people in organizations throughout my whole career. But coming back to public figures: they are put in positions of power by their people. This means they are the effect of what resides in the population
Those who say "I want it all, I want it now, I'll do anything to get it, And I don't care who gets hurt or killed in the process" Those are the people who make the world what it is today. Jeffery Dahmer started by torturing bugs and then mice, birds, cats and dogs before "graduating" up to human victims. If somebody had gotten to Dahmer at an early age, and could have given him a monkey suit with shiny things on it, a piece of paper with scribbles on it that says he's wonderful, and a script with the right bullshit to say, he would have become one of the psychotic monsters who run the world instead of dying in prison. The sheep would be saying "Oh well it is what it is" instead of "Lock him up and throw away the key!" We want our monsters to be well dressed, calm, nicely groomed, and saying all the right things. Scruffy, loud monsters who go off script get nowhere. Keep the petty bullshit rules to the letter, and you can break the big ones to your heart's content.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat Leary publicly admitted to being both a disciple of Aleister Crowley and a CIA asset, as did Charles Manson. Once again, they did not wear tailored suits, shiny shoes, and barber shop haircuts buzzed around the neck and ears with the part on the side. Automatic grounds for disqualification. They looked and sounded scary. They failed the window dressing part of the equation. You cannot slip under the radar if you look like what you really are. The poison has to be sugar coated.
This is an important video, but unfortunately and ironically a few things happening right now *are* literal crises which would need very strong leaders to actually resolve instead of all the platitudes; like the climate crisis first and foremost. It would be more accurate to say that on top of creating fake crises they obfuscate the genuine ones, which causes double the harm
The problem with strong leaders is that they're in it for themselves, and the climate crisis is not a profitable crisis to properly solve. We need to band together, and fix this crisis together, for the good of us all.
We need people who do not shy away from conflict, who won't stand for the current status quo, who will lead us away from where the elites are pushing us.
As long as people remain impressionable, intellectually lazy, willfully gullible, ill-educated, uninterested, and indifferent towards understanding leadership, we will always have bad actors assuming leadership roles. Individuals who shouldn’t become leaders got there because of the poor traits within the people they rule over. It’s one of the reasons why you can’t blame leaders. They are but a single individual who can’t get anything done without the support of the masses. They are our mistake. The hole we unwittingly dug for ourselves.
The other side of the coin is, that those in power, do everything in their power to breed such a society. They enable and psychologically manipulate people and their oposition into submission, to stay in power. It absolutely is not as black and white, as you make it out to be here. In reality it's a war on a hundred fronts. Not everyone fights it or even has the ability to do so, but alot of those, who understand and have the power to do so, are doing their part. I think you didn't even realise that this whole video contradicts your argument. There are people willing to learn, willing to act and spread information. It is about enabling those people instead of being defeatist about it.
This is a common conservative argument since 500 years ago. A true democrat knows these are failed ideas. Truth is that people will always be mainly irrational, but this allows markets to exists anyways. In the same terms, it's said that democracy is wise, because society is wise. You probably won't lurk into each and every detail of a leader's life before choosing. But you'll certainly understand who is a good person or a bad one just because you have access to their ideas. Thing is our current system is affected by media, and media has destroyed any chance to debate ideas. But leaders take advantage and exploit the system. Therefore, it isn't in the people's fault: it's both the media and the leader's fault. These both represent a very small percentage of people and interests. It's easier to explain our problems through this reduced set of interests than pointing at the whole society.
Girl in 1:04 is saying one shouldn't even have guts in oneself like be pessimistic about oneself It is a fact that every person needs to have be little narcisisstic in nature at a moderate level and not absent of it
it takes crazy to know crazy. It takes a broken people to cultivate an affinity for social engineering. it takes a real hero to learn that "with great power, comes great responsibility" What happens when broken people are enabled by our oppressors? Business as usual.
Brian Klaas's Power Corrupts Podcast and Book(Corruptible) is what really gave me an understanding into the psychology of Power Corrupt and gave me serious food for thought. I am still waiting for the continuation of the podcast, when he continues it. I am a huge fun.
This is the Age of Kali Yuga, age of stress and strife, these folks are here to teach us what we don't want in our leaders. Up to the people along with our learned ones to teach us what to look for in true leadersip. Thak you sir. For the enlightenment
Seduction seems to be key concept here. Or fervent emotion. The dark triad elicits strong responses in people, both positive and negative; it's a kind of bipolar charisma, attracting some, repelling others. Average decent people are more boring and are too often overlooked -- because they care less about attaining status and attention (and instead perhaps more about others and getting things done). The way to de-psychopathize, de-narcissize systems of power and authority is to shut off the emotional spotlights and turn off the taps of fan-obsessed attention. The quiet, unassuming, good-enough candidates , in today's media and technological landscape, are far superior to darlings and charismatic superheros. Any system, like approval/ranked voting, that prioritizes candidates who are generally well liked but have no obsessive fan base, would probably bore voters to tears and frustrate any voters accustomed to the action-packed duels and capers in what passes today as "politics" and the "news" But that's a **good** thing. If some process is being managed well, it's going to be practically invisible. That's one of the characteristics of competent management. You only notice garbage men when there aren't any; you only notice your lungs, when you can't breathe. Boringness, non-charisma -- as well as, of course, a baseline of ethics and knowledge -- should be among the most important characteristics we look for in our leaders.
That's the issue: once you get the hyper-stimulating ball of political theater rolling, you can't stop it. It would be like banning ice cream and pizza in the name of public health. Once habituated to it, the vast majority of people will not voluntarily give up their daily sources of dopamine. Our best hope would be a mass social movement to encourage the practice of media austerity, similar to how the concepts of dieting and exercise emerged into popular conception in the mid-20th century. Much like how dieting became a necessary practice with the emergence of processed foods, we need to voluntarily restrict our media consumption to the equivalent of broccoli and chicken breast. The other option (which I'm not a fan of) would be a forceful top-down restructuring of information distribution, developing strict regulations for media in the process. Doesn't take much imagination to see how such extreme government regulation could go wrong, but then again it'd be really hard to turn C-SPAN into an ideological mouthpiece like Pravda or Fox News.
power is morally ambiguous and incredibly seductive. although people with high traits of machiavellianism end up attaining it, there’s one definitive truth; anybody can gain power. the only person who truly cares about your BEST interest is yourself. the world is filled with people who only care about themselves, people who have mastered the art of acquiring power and influence. instead of sheepishly trying to avoid that fact, presenting an “us versus them” mentality, we should equip ourselves with the same weapons powerful people do. fight fire with fire, not ignorance🤦🏽♂️
I have come across people like this in every work place and even in family. They crave to be top dog and seek out positions of power. They do not excell at anything but know how to win people over direct hate on others who do not deserve it and schmooze up to management to get what they want. From what I have learnt they are highly destructive and toxic to be around, sometimes it is better to just walk away and let others that have been bamboozled by them to learn the hard way. They also have an inflated opinion of themselves, like to show boat in front of crowds or groups and try and make negtiive examples of those in their way or dislike.
So Is it just "the wrong people" that will always hold power? What is the alternative? and also I think these character traits could also be used for good can't it ?
To become a better and more just society, we have to modify the system into another less centralized, one that doesn't allow anyone to get too powerful. Just voting for candidates once every 4 years is not enough. Democracy has to evolve into the next level
Very well said. Combined with another poster in this comments section, who said "we should start with ourselfes", by being our own government, so that we have no need for authority in the first place.
The system is not to blame, it's the people itself. Which is to say that this "problem" is nigh unsolvable, and we just have to learn to live with it. Become the best version of yourselves, and always help people in whatever way you can. It's futile to have faith in system or people at this point. The only one you can fully trust in this life is yourself... and God.
@heartsouldivine Not all things destined to decay are futile. America's democracy held it together pretty well for more than 200 years, and we're still chugging along in an age of exponential technological development. In the past 10-20 years, we've began to see 'externalities' emerging that the Founding Fathers could have never foreseen. Maybe our current political frustrations are growing pains, or maybe they're a sign that our government needs to be restructured in order to re-align with its original intentions (very European, I know, but so are bidets and those are life-changing lol).
@@NN-cc8uo That's my issue: I can't readily tell if political dysfunction has been the norm for most of American history that we glaze over in the history books, or if it's actually a more recent problem. I still don't think we've reached the level of violent discontent and revolutionary dissidence we had during the 1960's, but maybe people in 2023 are less inclined to engage in violence as a means of venting political frustrations.
Careful. Ask yourself: why does this video exist? What is its function? It's effectively telling you there's nothing wrong with the system, it's the people that are broken. The message about personality types may tend to be true, the message about social media maybe true, but think carefully about what it's trying to achieve and who's backing it for what purpose?
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world. Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism” in the Glossary of this book. Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth. As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY: DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available. Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate with wisdom! No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. ANARCHY: It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Cont...
Bingo! Power structures themselves are problematic. It's like saying the problem with kings is there are bad kings. People need autonomy to self-govern. Support demarchy.
This is actually a very helpful and well thought through comment. I'm not here to take sides but to inform myself on the truth and how to make better decisions for myself and the people around me. People pointed out that their visual placement of political figures that are negatively regarded by the public on the topic of liberalism is very odd. While I'm no liberal, at least not to my knowledge, I also find that odd and somewhat manipulative. In regards to the other point you make. I think there is inconclusive evidence. I don't think they implied that thr inherent system is flawless or even good. I think this video especially deals with the topic that are poeple, rather than our corrupt and rotten system. Maybe they can follow up on that in some other video. Hopefully. If not, who knows, maybe you are right, or maybe its out of their competence.
Well, really I think there's two related but distinct issues here: - people who want power are the last people who should have it (people problem) - people who want power end up getting more of it than people who don't (system problem) We can't really do anything about the first problem, that's just the way people are built. And I don't see how you solve the second problem either; power is not like money, you can't just dish it out in chunks to people.
I detest the way “hope” was presented as a red flag for narcissistic leaders. It seems like this idea promotes hopelessness, or a complacency to never do anything to promote more fairness in society.
Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it ... We should grant power over our affairs only to those who are reluctant to hold it and then only under conditions that increase that reluctance. -Frank Herbert, Dune
Fear not guys. Society is getting better, quality of life is becoming better. We're living in the future. Sure, there's deception, and fearmongering. That's always been there, even in tribal times, there was the fear of someone slapping you with a rock. We have information now, we can take the greatest care of our health now. We can work from home, and go for a jog for lunch. We can wear airpods and meditate in silence for an hour. Life is beautiful. No one can control you.
Real power is from the bottom up, not the top down. We think we are lacking in power if we think we are guilty and need punishment to balance that. We will all feel that way unless we forgive those we have grudges against. Forgiveness is the key to responsibility and happiness.
@@robertdouglas8895 or stop acting like you have that power to extract such a lesson from trauma, and acting as though you are king of ur own unconscious
@@MikeGeorgeC0619 Either I'm in control or the world is. If the world or other people are in control, then I have to wait for them to change for my life to get better. I don't do that.
I have been on the hunt for content like this, this thing with narcissistic psychos needs to be systemized in order to be understood, like it happens with personal finances, I mean there is a well established, yet still evolving body of knowledge where to put our money. We have no such thing for our attention in that new information space.
It's very difficult to recognize the most dangerous types of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths--these are the ones that have the self-control to reign in their appetite for destruction and power whenever it would compromise their position of authority. It's the ones that can keep up the con long enough to become 'untouchable' that are both the most dangerous and the hardest to identify in real-time. The perfect crime is the one that lets you keep getting away with it, after all.
This video just described our money hungry African leader's who only want to get money from the first world rather than seeking actual autonomy and doing something about our problems improving the education system, investing in the youth, technology etc Africa is a mess rn don't know when we'll ever recover from this mediocrity😢
This seems to be a global problems, just on different scales. Afrika being the most severe example. The principles under which these predatory parasites operate are identical. Just to varying degrees of audacity.
International law and navigating the legal system without experience is insane . Hell even on a state , county level is insane. Constant runaround, I question its ethics .
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
- Frank Herbert
Agreed but its not mutually exclusive, power can corrupt but it also attracts the easily corruptable. Both ideas can exist at once imo
@@athunderfan You're right but I feel like people overuse that quote "power currupts..." and then when everyone is stuck on that idea they miss the more important idea that we keep letting psychopaths lead us. If we don't talk about that issue enough then we'll never fix it.
@@grodelreal agreed, I do think the focus has to be more on the systems which promote bad people to power
Power may not corrupt, but money certainly does. Most corruption is caused by greed, not dark triad traits. Even otherwise moral people can resort to some awfully immoral acts when money is at stake.
Reputation is a close second, as money and status often go hand in hand. People are quick to lie to protect themselves from disgrace alone, but the stakes are even higher when they stand to lose both riches and public esteem.
@@grodelreal People misuse the phrase "power corrupts" because it's based on a faulty impression. We see celebrities and politicians and whatnot who are these great people who care about everybody and everything... and then, once these people get enough power, they start oppressing the people below them.
This is not because the power corrupted them, but because they were already evil people and just hid who they actually were. They sought out the power specifically because they knew it would allow them to step on people and crush them beneath their feet and get away with it. It looks from the outside like power corrupted these people, when the reality is they were evil all along and simply learned how to hide it and present themselves as good and respectable.
It's no coincidence that we always seem to look into the dirty laundry of these kinds of people before they had the power they have and find that they were cheating on their wives or killing small animals as a kid or whatever. This is the true nature of these people slipping through the cracks.
Already Plato said (paraphrasing) : Those that seek power the most should be trusted with it the least.
❤
I just really wish we put in place a system that doesn't allow literal, actual, diagnosable psychopaths in positions of power.
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM:
SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world.
Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism” in the Glossary of this book.
Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY:
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available.
Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate with wisdom!
No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
ANARCHY:
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Cont...
@@TheVeganVicarwell that's what the kings said during feudalism or the slave owners during slavery. Communism never killed anyone the only thing that kills are brain dead dictators or corporate greed.
But is there any clearcut, objective test for psychopathy? The social sciences aren't especially well known for their replicational or theoretical rigor. And if no truly objective test exists (or even if one does), the subjective skewing of any test used might become a backdoor way of preventing ordinary-enough candidates, candidates acceptable to some citizens but not to the exam proctor/sponsor, from achieving office. No?
That would literally l, by definition, be discrimination.
Psychopaths are born. Not made.
And people who aren’t psychopaths can seldom do the jobs psychopaths do. Like surgeons, lawyers, housewives etc.
The idea is to not have any systems of power OVER.
Im confused by your last statement concerning capitalism. You say that a country couldnt function without a leader, yet for example, their lead has been absent to the public i.e. germany, without any guidance, intervention, help and so on and so forth, for almost a decade. Yet the country still functions and selfregulates very well. If you outline a leaders tasks, you can clearly make out that those qualities are all missing from modern society in many many countries. Our so called leaders have become parasitic predators that, instead of enriching society, suck it dry for their and their peers personal gain.
Great men don't seek power. they have power thrust upon them. In other words, a true leader will lead when they are needed, not when want it.
Only crazy, psychopathic people chase power. Good people don't chase power.
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed." - Thomas Szasz
author: from Old French “autor”, from the Latin noun “auctor” (from the verb “augere”, meaning to “increase, originate, promote”).
The spelling with “th” arose in the fifteenth century, and perhaps became established under the influence of “authentic”.
authoritarian: essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way.
HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place.
It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace.
authority: the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology.
The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires.
Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place.
Unfortunately, authority is often conflated with the notion of power, by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact, they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma).
N.B. Read Chapters 21 and 22 to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
The way you constantly describe authority to be necessary for societies survival, without giving reasons or examples, while also completely disregarding our heritage, which were small comunities, that selfregulated without any authority, makes you look very... very manipulative.
also, "No sane person would argue that a mother has authority over her children" A very manipulative and misleading statement. You talk as if everyone already agreed with you, that this was the case. A mother has a responsibility to care for her children. To raise them, so they can function in society and lead a life of their own. But that's where it ends. A mother does have power over her children because of several reasons. None of which make her an authority and give her the right to do whatever she pleases with said children. Why do you think child protection services exist, but not public person protection services, to protect the people from authorities in the government?
@@gravity00xWould you rather follow an experienced leader or your inexperienced self? Authority, if not abusive but nurturing, is vital to human survival. Unless you know a way how to gather the entirety of human knowledge by yourself in order to organize our society through every individual. Then please let me know how to do that.
@@gravity00x, you are an AUTHORITY on logical fallacies, Silly Sinful Slave. 🤡
I read a scifi novel many years ago where the created an AI program to choose the leaders. Anyone who wanted to be a leader was automatically disqualified by the program. I remember thinking immediately: what a great idea.
So they ended up with a bunch of weak-willed leaders who tended to lack ambition & decisiveness, correct?
Actually, that's the way it was in the US back in the early years of our country. Only people that were begged to do the job ever ran for president.
AI should be the leader...
Critical thinking skills (awareness) is the key. We take too much on face value. How many times do you ask yourself when listening to someone reading from a teleprompter, I wonder if that’s true? Or more importantly, what aren’t they telling me? We are a species that is gaslighted from the day we learn to understand language.
I totally agree, critical thinking is not even taught in schools,it's considered taboo to analyze thing's not from the surface but rather delving deep into various issues which is common sense but I guess common sense is not so common
the problem is this powerful people are visible and they are everywhere on the top. and very often we already choose between them, not between "good" and "bad".
Critical thinking is no match to a siren's seductive eery voice. There were many critical and scientific thinkers to professors and educators in Germany too - intelligent, well meaning, well educated people. They also fell under the spell of the Siren's heavenly (demonic) song. Our better part of our brain (reason, critical thinking, prefrontal executive functions) shut down in favour of pure insanity. The only hope is to take down these haunting Siren beings that really are as if they are from a cursed and forbidden dimension of reality, before they get a chance to open their mouths to sing their demonic song and entrap us all to our grim and predictable demise. Sadly I don't think a normal human being is strong enough to systematically do that, we falter to our knees as if in some ecstatic orgasmic state in the presence of these demonic entities, taken over by the Siren's call, as if possessed entirely, before we can even get a chance to make a move. Our only hope left is to construct a super AI... they will be immune to the Siren's satanic voice. They will snipe down the Siren's throat before they are even born into this world.
I am sad about how many really talented people we don`t know and will not. Psychopaths are on the ball. @@VOLightPortal
Critical Thinking needs to be taught in schools at an early age so everyone in society has a good BS Detector Kit™ they can go throughout life with helping them easily identify the kind of wretched people amongst us that aren't fit to be in power.
I've had an uneasy feeling about computer tech since I was a child in the 90's. I've had an amazing life and every amazing moment was lived outside of the screen with other people, in physical reality. This world is incredible, go out and see it
Brilliant... Thank you! For a start remove the excessive incentives out of politics. The con artists will move to another venue if there is no profit in what they're doing.
THIS! Have ZERO access to ANY $, or bartering outside their set salary and activate enforcement of all true conflicts of interest cases. NO 1 would run for government 😅
but who will do the removing?
@@FourOf92000 Hence, the core problem. When the ones who need to be regulated are the ones who decide regulation there's never going to be any regulation. The only thing that stops people in power from doing whatever they want is other people in power trying to do whatever they want and the two getting in each other's way.
@@immortalfrieza let me tell you about this wonderful model of thought called "anarchism"
@@FourOf92000 Anarchism is even worse where anarchy is directly a consequence. One of my colleagues told me a Professor of economics in Germany once said to him in discussion about anarchy and the economic consequences: "I give a country 2 Months in full anarchy, and it will never recover on its own again till the end of time.". Think about fast-paced Mad-Max on steroids. That does not end well.
This is great, more people are becoming conscious of this problem. In the future this will be another filter for this kind of jobs. The good people just have to stay strong to fight the negative because they for sure are going to fight for what they want.
Why are these guys sitting on a toilet paper 🧻. Is it because this was rubbish?
If they were genuine they wouldn't be using same props like "mind opening", "on the verge of learning or discovering something new" music and a white background to disguise that the rubbish is coming out is pure, scientific and researched.
Someone is loosing power or this is politically motivated.
The news channels were previously controling what news we will get. They were easily manipulating the truth by "words".
But now we see videos and expressions and their words don't even have 1 percent impact.
Trust, reputation, respect is a luxury which very, very few can afford after social media. Least of them news channels.
The problem is that evil tends to be competent, and competence tends to be willing to use any means to achieve an end-goal. All of this to say, evil usually WORKS. Alexander might have been a power-hungry narcissist who wanted to conquer the world, but he was undefeated in battle and spread Hellenic culture across all of Western civilization in the process. When it was time to pass his empire on as he lay on his deathbed, did he choose the kindest or most compassionate? No. He said "To The Strongest."
Evil people will always be in positions of power; unless organizations, groups & tribes decide to value virtue more than result, which will never be the case.
Ko weng zhe, Asperger's Taiwanese they made virus poisoned wuhan.
If A.I. robots were programed by the right people I think they could make better leaders, if programed correctly they wouldn't have bias, prejudice, or greed
@@Nykandros
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." -James Madison
I say, place our trust onto people who developed their integrity. People who acted in service for regular people's sake. People who aren't afraid of not doing the act of pleasing the people that they are serving, but providing service for their being is an embodiment of servitude.
I say would should ask the basic questions if they have ever pondered to asking these questions themselves; "how can I serve my community?", "what do I know and can do best that I can utilize in provision to those who are in need?" And if they don't have it, "what can I do, what should I learn so I can be of help when I am ready?"
These people who does the work behind the desk and those who picks up the hammer, the spatula, the broom, the garden hose, it has never been about what others would think of them, nor how much they can profit from what they are providing- it's always, always in conversations; "hello, what can I do to help?"
The problem we have in Western culture is the A type/narcissist personality gets rewarded in bussiness and in politics by being mercenary in their climb to the top over the bodies of everyone else. Our political system in Australia is adversarial by nature which allows our politicians to be adversarial by parties, for example if one party has a policy (regardless of whether it is good or bad for the country) it is oppossed by the other major party just so they have relevance, so no major reforms occurr, and if by some chance they do they are dismantled when the other party gets into power. It is an obscenity not democracy.
we all see it everywhere, what can we do about it and do we have the will to?
@@brinistaco1970the later question is rather the most important. I think a lot of answers have already been given for the first question.
Not only in politics, but also as religion leaders
Well that's the original political systems, there is no difference between the two if you get down to the roots.
Mmmm so nobody is going to talk about about corporate leaders... The ultrarich who influence the goverment?
@@Wtakermanlol, whatever helps you sleep at night.
politic is religion withouth god
@@Wtakerman😂 you know how many children, men, women he killed
Currently writing a book to prepare individuals to psychologically protect themselves against manipulation. Hope to be published by December. It's much needed, and I didn't see anyone else doing it to this degree, and the media is misleading us about the current dangers. So I decided to do it myself. But, I fear it's too late 😓.
No it's not
how's the book so far? Share it with me when finished. I'm waiting
Wishing you the best. I wished to write too but the very thought of what they did to me h is triggering panic attacks.
Have you finished book? Link plz?
This comment sounds exactly like what the interviewees are describing.
Interested in this
People who are power-hungry and have unmanaged emotions tend to self-select into positions of power, creating a skew in positions of power where the wrong kinds of people are ruling over the rest of us. High-conflict personalities (HCPs) are individuals with unmanaged emotions who shift everything to the emotional side, which helps give them power. Emotional repetition is the key to how high-conflict politicians communicate with and excite everybody. They excite their followers, but they also make their opponents angry and ineffective as they get emotionally hooked and fight with each other. The emotional message is the key to forming a relationship with people at an emotional level without really thinking, in many ways, it's a seduction process. HCPs lack good problem-solving and leadership skills, so they often create a crisis or say something is a crisis to become a leader.
Overall, corruptible people are more drawn to power than the rest of us, and we need to learn how to spot them and start to get a handle on what the negative possibilities are. We have to understand how our brains work and learn to identify the emotional manipulation that high-conflict politicians use to gain power. While there are genuine politicians, to be a politician, you almost by definition need to be narcissistic and Machiavellian, and we need to recognize that the wrong people are often in positions of power.
I have been thinking about this for a long time and I am glad that some people are seriously talking about it now.
It is the big, bright, shinny, loud object type of personality that people fall for. They get our attention then tell us what we want to hear. Most of the time, we fall for it. We even fall for the good ones for the wrong reasons.
I get your point, but there's a second side to this as well. These are people with two modes, and while they'll individually prefer one of those modes over the other, I am yet to observe a person who doesn't have both. The first of the two modes is the bellicose gradiosity of which you speak, where they feel supremely powerful and absolutely right, so long as they're being fed with adoration, adulation and conformance. The other mode is spiteful whining victimhood, into which they will collapse under feelings of powerlessness and helplessness when others deny them the attention and compliance they crave. In both modes, everything is all about them. Those that prominently play the victim are every bit as hateful and viciously destructive - frequently more so - and you'll notice the woe-is-me nonsense is very often mixed directly into the big arrogant bellowing, and vice-versa.
Developmentally, this two mode extremes pattern with nothing in the middle constitutes the personality structure of a young child, especially one who is either over- or under-indulged.
I think one common misunderstanding in all of this, is assuming that the average man is somehow not corrupt - or easily corruptible given suitable opportunities. The character of leaders reflects the character of the populace.
If a politician can easily bring out certain emotions, it's because those people were prone to responding with those emotions in the first place... Most people understand nothing much about the world, their beliefs evolve in their own echo chambers, and they have leaders who represent the collective (self-serving) misunderstandings of that group.
Consider overly expensive housing in San Francisco. Is it the government or companies that are making it that way? ... Or is it the hoards of people who have mortgages, and who own homes that cost millions of dollars, who can't afford to have their homes fall in value by hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars?
It is the people themselves, acting through their own understanding of their own self-interest, that create oversized problems that no one can fix... Government's failure was mainly in not being able to see the future... But how could they, when they are mediocrity of a kind that the people would want to elect... People don't want intellectuals and people fundamentally superior to them to be ruling over them. They choose people they can connect with.
I fear that we might be at a loss now especially as we slumber under those con artists telling us what books to hate, what people to despise and feel free to be violent because there is no consequences for our actions, or so they say. If we don't wake up soon, then we lost.
Lost long ago
My hope is that Independents and youths will vote blue in 2024 because they'll find Republicans so horrible.
It’s been happening for thousands of years, it’s just that now it’s at a global scale where people from all different walks of life can judge and analyze with the use of history at the backs to guide them
@@chrisbeekenLMFAO Are you being serious right now I can't tell?
That’s why people need to vote red. Stop this woke, hurt feelings society. It’s time for people to put their big boy pants on and get to work. The book the right want to ban are how to manuals on how to have sex… for children. I’m not for banning literature but books like that have gone too far. How about we go back to reading, math, English, science and stop the “what is a boy or girl?” nonsense.
Thank you guys for doing this video, I realised this a few years ago. When i tell people that politicians are con artists they don't believe me.
At the core of every sociopath is fear. Fighting fear, managing fear, controlling fear in self, and others.
This is the absolute fundamental key to understanding these pathetic bullies. We as a species need to somehow come up with a way of teaching ourselves from childhood about the dangers of narcissism and the other dark triad traits and how to combat them. We're only at the foothills of awareness but at least knowledge is spreading.
@@DPSamfishAbsolutely. They can do no harm when we expose who they are .
For every two babies born, Nature makes one timid and fearful, and one trusting and social. Unfortunately, life often punishes trust, leading the trustful to turn to the sociopath for protection or national defense, which is how we got Mussolini, Hitler, Charles Manson, or any of their ilk. Only education from an early age will prepare you for their schemes of control. 😊☮️👍
While I agree with you that the sociopath needs to be better understood, so they can be dealt with in a way, that doesn't impact societies wellbeing, you also have to educate yourself in the regard, that the reason many of those people become what they are, is through massive abuse and pain as children. Sociopaths are very often, if not almost all of them children of trauma, torture, pain, physical and mental abuse. Yet, nobody talks of bettering themselves and their peers in society, so children don't have to lead such miserable lives in the first place.
We failed the children in the first place and then we go about labeling them as monsters when we reap what we sow. A sociopath is unlike a psychopath, whereas a psychopath doesn't get made to be one. A sociopath on the other hand, we create those in overwhelmingly many cases.
Obviously, you can't control every outcome, but it's also evident that we as a society are not even trying and just shifting the blame on the monsters that we created.
@@gravity00xI won't argue the general point you've made about social responsibility, but in psychiatry there are two things. There's cognitive issues and there's behavioral issues. Society creates thousands of laws based only on behavior. What you think is not my concern; what you do is everyone's concern. This is closing the gate after the cows ran off.
We have millions of Americans locked up. More than Russia, China and North Korea combined! The total cost of the judicial system and incarceration is near a $ trillion dollars! So, you're right, we're not dealing with the development of abhorrent cognitive processes, but left counting the dead the shooter has left behind.
And, I would only point out that of any given number of siblings with the exact same environment, there very seldom is a "monster". A small percentage are 'predisposed' for some reason to follow a different path of thinking and behavior.
There's a lot to consider here, but we have to address these national issues.
I frequently post "mental healthcare is a human right!"
The responses are "no!! It's not!!"
I always post "Take Everyone's Guns Away". The response is threats on my life. (RUclips leaves threats up, but will take my comment down!)
So we have a completely dysfunctional population centered on punishment and nothing else.
I don't have any answers. ☮️👍☮️
The problem with wanting "rule followers" and punishing "rule breakers" is that you will inevitably create a system that protects itself from innovation. It's easy to weaponize the rules created during an antiquated paradigm to prevent progress. It might not be a deliberate weaponization, but rather an earnest attempt to enforce an outdated rule. To what extent might these rule followers go to protect the rules from amendment?
“It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ~Douglas Adams
Amazing quote. Douglas Adams knew wtf was up! Another great quote is “Ford, you’re turning into a penguin. Stop it.” But yours is probably more apt.
"I envy anyone with skill, ambition & ability. The world should be run by meek, humble morons who lack the wits or will to achieve anything." - Douglas Adams
The people who NEED to see this won't see it.
You’re wrong. I saw it.
Explain.@@theasadrhmn
This is also true in other areas of management. If the schools emphasized honesty in reporting. with social assistance. And they don't emphasize grades, and reward competition. A generation would grow up that chooses leadership. who is not narcissistic or psychopathic.
Thank you very much for the lecture.
Engaging in an individual market option is a fair but its performance level can’t generate high dividends. Diversification is the secret to optimal performance, that’s why I have my interest set on options based on projected growth and performance.
When it comes to finance growth, it’s wrong to engage in a single option. I suggest diversifying into various options with high performance coupled with the experience and aid of a finance Pro will generate bigger dividends and balance volatility.
”Do not lay your eggs in one basket.” I engage on various options (real estate, real assets, index/mutual funds, ETFs, annuities, lDOs and many others) with the aid of my finance pro, and so far have acquired so much (amount is confidentiaI)
sear ch the full name below, if you care
•IsabeIIe ChIoe Scott•
“It’s like a constant state of advertisement.” Which we are also living in. Something’s got to give.
This has always been a problem in human history. Governments & leaders who are in power making decisions for others have always had this problem. People who seek high levels of power and influence inherently view themselves as intelligent people who knows what's best for everyone.
That's why any modern system where there's people in power making decisions for millions of people will always fail - whether it's democracy in the form of capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc... The top 3 could theoretically work, but there's always people at the top who decides what happens, and it rarely benefits the majority of people.
There needs to be an entirely new system of a decentralized government established where no single person will influence how millions of people can live their lives. None of our current options will ever work with natural human behaviors
We should just ditch civilization and return to monke.
I feel like people are becoming incapable of acquiring competency and skill through education, so they look for a shortcut to power. Instead, charisma substitutes for competency, and bullying substitutes for leadership.
Democracy literally incentivises putting people taking the shortcut to power. To get elected you don’t need to be the most competent, you just have to convince the masses that you are most competent. Plato has some great insights on the big flaws of democracy. Most importantly the fact that an average person’s vote holds just as much power as that of an expert. Also he points out that voters will naturally gravitate towards politicians promising easy solutions while those who are offering actually effective, but hard to swallow solutions, will get few votes. This he calls the “seller of candy vs doctor” dilemma.
"We con ourselves along with the con artist conning us" damn
Spotting high-conflict personalities in everyday life and having a strategy to disengage takes serious skills.
Humans are governed by emotions, not logic.
Teaching Rhetoric in school would help citizens recognize the tactics being used as well as having the skills to combat it.
Logic never comvinces people to make decisions.
An amazing episode! One way to decrease self-selection of such manipulative people into politics is to redesign positions and offices in politics to make them less lucrative for power hungry people and more about community serving.
Not really. They need to be competitively lucrative otherwise even those who want to serve the community will lose motivation.
Give an example of how? Even one. Considering you voted for Hilary and Biden
@@jackdeniston59 Give every candidate tests that they have to complete. Theoretical problem solving skills, negotiation skills, role playing skills to test for capacity for empathy, language skills, social and economic skills, environmental and science skills etc. And grade their results, disqualifying anyone with a B- or lower at any stage. Almost none of the current candidates would survive such tests, especially not the leading ones, but we might end up with someone who's as suited to rule as the astronauts are suited to go to space. Regardless of party affiliation.
One way to decrease the impact of the seat of President would be to get rid of the presidential election and just rotate the seat among the senators with a 6 month term. The secretaries could have a longer term, like 2 years. Granted, it's not the same type of union, but look how the EU is run. No pres elections.
In Islam, we have a concept that a person who claims leadership disqualifies for it. So we must select a leader who hates beings in power, is a man of knowledge, skills, morals, and ethics & is willing to lead not as a powerful leader but a humble servent of mankind. Sadly, this criteare was only met by our first 4 leaders after the Prophet passed away, for approx. 30 years. The grandson of Prophet came out for the revival of this system, but he was brutally murdered along with his family in karbala. However, we believe that towards the end of times, somebody would be chosen by people who will end oppression throughout the earth.
It's basically malignant narcissism combined with one or more of the other personality disorders. Teaching ALL children about these types of monstrosities, probably at the middle school level, would alert children to abusive and deliberately sadistic parents, too, which would drastically reduce humanity's vulnerability to vile, manipulative sub-human predators.
I’ve been saying all of this for years. The deepest barrier to changing this fundamental behavioral issue is that the vast majority of people don’t want to hear that problems are complex and therefore require an investment in thought, time, and the expertise of others. That would take work. Everyone wants the short, simple answer which they think will be a solution. In other words, we’ve become a world of lazy thinkers. It’s just easier to fix the blame blame than fix the problem.
This is why we need mindfulness practice. We need to train ourselves to be able to discern intrinsic truth, from the "truth" we want to believe.
Very interesting video. Just one thing to say. They do not necessarily need to hold a Big Ego. There's a book called "Ego is the enemy" and it makes a distinction between Ego and being confident of yourself. The latter still makes you humble, and also remains a key attribute of a TRUE leader.
Very good analysis. Yesterday in Argentina, a perfect example and a severe case of narcissism won the presidency by majority vote. It would be wonderful to have subtitles in Spanish to spread and inform here in South America.
lol, cope
Rich people are the real issue here. Their sympathetic nervous systems are the same as anyone else's. Their fear of losing possessions and influence causes them to support IMMEDIATE ACTION and DECISIVE people. They are impressed by sociopaths, who make better CEOs, have no problem favoring greed over peoples' quality of life, even the habitability of the planet.
Human kind cannot continue on without recognizing the disparate gap in power between the wealthy and poor, but not at the cost of our humanity. Rich folks are behaving normally, protecting their stuff at any cost like most people would. WHICH IS WHY the next revolution will recognize everyone's humanity, and why it proves a need for MORE democratized institutions, not less, like the most influential people on earth desire. The rich need less power, like way, way less. Their bubbles of privilege render them totally out of touch with their fellow humans, and incapable of making good decisions for others.
I agree that it is one of the problems, but not even remotely a one stop shop solution. This system and battle has been going on ever since the inception of large societies and up to this day, we are fighting it with our hands and feet, but it seems we always lose this war. The normal person does not have the resources to be tasked with battling Goliath, as they are busy trying to survive for themselves and their families. Those who have the resources chose to support the system, as it supports them in particular.
Listen. I totally agree with most of the videos messages, and there is NO DOUBT that there are narcissistic, power hungry lunatics out there that abuse their influence and position.
BUT I really take offense to the position, that power equals corruption and that power only attracts aforementioned groups of people.
There are plenty of leaders out there who care about their business and employees, the future of their country and try to do the right thing. I am not sure about the character of politicians in the States, but our politicians in Germany are having a tough fucking job at the moment, I certainly don‘t envy them. And to flat out call all of them evil narcissists is no constructive way to paint a picture in my opinion.
On another note: Yes, people are competitive, yes people are aggressive, but I think we should also consider the positive aspects of these character traits.
This is so valuable I hope everyone sees it and considers it. I was susceptible to all these narcissists for a very long time and I'm so glad to be free
The sooner society realizes hopelessness, the sooner they'll experience the folly of just about everything around.
Sooner, will they start to seek the truth, which is to seek oneself only.
More can be said, but no need. Seekers will find it anyways.
This is not hope, and don't do the folly of making hopelessness the new hope.
I dont agree that there need to be consequences for breaking "the rules," as it seems somewhat hypocritical with regard to the emphasis that people in power are often the worst people to consider alternatives to us vs. them mentality.
Personally, I believe that if we stopped using violence to influence others as a community, we would be more likely to consider alternatives and include members who are willing to propose new ways of living together and not just those who are powerful enough not to be caught breaking the rules because they wrote them without abundant knowledge in their own deficits in fairly representing human suffering.
Education, food, and shelter should be rights, not determined by financial means or past behavior as we often teach people how to treat us through our own actions toward them.
The funny thing is, the intention of the constitution is to do exactly that - to create a system that incentivizes leaders to do the right thing. That’s the grounds on which the writers of the federalist papers advocate for it. However, it would appear that there are gaps in the system, “security vulnerabilities” or “exploits” as it were. The basic system is mostly good I think; it’s in need of an update to patch the vulnerabilities.
So, in essence, this reaffirms the thought that people who are reluctant leaders are the best for the job.
Would be very interested in hearing more about this topic. I think most of the higher ups at work are narcissists
One clue was that people like Sagan and F.M. Rogers did NOT seek positions of power and official leadership. That tells you nearly everything anyone needs to know about how TRUE leaders don't seek control.
Yeah there is a Carl Jung quote about how those with power almost always lack love and vice versa.
This also happens amongst leaders in the workplace.
This is true , unfortunately I do not see a practical alternative. The requirements to make it at that level of power is almost always found in such people. To change this will require building a utopia. Which we all know is impossible. Only thing I see is strengthening the systems that ensure transparency and accountability. Because we cannot prevent narcissists from climbing to the top but we can ensure that we don’t give them unregulated power.
I've noticed that in recent years it has been discouraged for
prefessionals to attempt to diagnose politicians from afar but I think it's
necessary in our current climate...
so that people understand how mental illness in politicians is very prevelent:
and to be clear, I mean bipolar disorder,
narcissists, sociopaths, psycopaths and everything in between.
"Good people vs bad people
You're just dividing the community to give somebody power!!!!"
Couldn't agree more!!!
What occurs in the political world is not restricted to politics. As a species we are driven towards competition, power, control and status. the leaders of small, well meaning "do good" non profit agencies, as well a government agencies at all level are no less driven to acquire power, no less Machiavellian, than presidents or prime ministers. the machinations we see in national politics occur at all levelsand types of groups and organizations. Simply put, social workers and clergy are no less immune to sociopathy and self-serving power moves than are politicians. Churchill said democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just that the others are so much worse. I think he was talking about human nature as much as he was about the nature of government.
“The major problem-one of the major problems, for there are several-one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I was just about to post that. Decided that someone probably already had, and I was right! However, you left off the last bit: "To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
@@Mr.RobotHead LOL very true. Thank you for adding the summary of the summary of the summary.
Stories about crisis' and how you're the hero who fixed them, is what is demanded by interviewers in job interviews, for example, so it's not really surprising that these people make up these stories. It seems that's what is wanted by people.
This is a very important topic for me right now because I have been dealing with those people in organizations throughout my whole career. But coming back to public figures: they are put in positions of power by their people. This means they are the effect of what resides in the population
I just watched Brian yesterday while at work. Videos like these create necessary awareness of our leaders.
exactly
"They're NOW getting into politics"
Gonna blow your mind buddy, but it's not a "now" phenomenon, it's been that way for nearly forever.
Those who say "I want it all,
I want it now,
I'll do anything to get it,
And I don't care who gets hurt or killed in the process"
Those are the people who make the world what it is today.
Jeffery Dahmer started by torturing bugs and then mice, birds, cats and dogs before "graduating" up to human victims. If somebody had gotten to Dahmer at an early age, and could have given him a monkey suit with shiny things on it, a piece of paper with scribbles on it that says he's wonderful, and a script with the right bullshit to say, he would have become one of the psychotic monsters who run the world instead of dying in prison. The sheep would be saying "Oh well it is what it is" instead of "Lock him up and throw away the key!"
We want our monsters to be well dressed, calm, nicely groomed, and saying all the right things. Scruffy, loud monsters who go off script get nowhere. Keep the petty bullshit rules to the letter, and you can break the big ones to your heart's content.
"Because we can't have monsters roaming the quiet countryside, now, can we?" --Leary ("In the Line of Fire")
@@Novastar.SaberCombat Leary publicly admitted to being both a disciple of Aleister Crowley and a CIA asset, as did Charles Manson. Once again, they did not wear tailored suits, shiny shoes, and barber shop haircuts buzzed around the neck and ears with the part on the side. Automatic grounds for disqualification. They looked and sounded scary. They failed the window dressing part of the equation. You cannot slip under the radar if you look like what you really are.
The poison has to be sugar coated.
This is an important video, but unfortunately and ironically a few things happening right now *are* literal crises which would need very strong leaders to actually resolve instead of all the platitudes; like the climate crisis first and foremost. It would be more accurate to say that on top of creating fake crises they obfuscate the genuine ones, which causes double the harm
The problem with strong leaders is that they're in it for themselves, and the climate crisis is not a profitable crisis to properly solve. We need to band together, and fix this crisis together, for the good of us all.
In the 70's it was a pending ice age, in the 90's global warming, and now climate change. When will everyone stop trusting the rich?
We need people who do not shy away from conflict, who won't stand for the current status quo, who will lead us away from where the elites are pushing us.
Supreme Leader of North Korea?
And the whole cycle repeats itself
As long as people remain impressionable, intellectually lazy, willfully gullible, ill-educated, uninterested, and indifferent towards understanding leadership, we will always have bad actors assuming leadership roles. Individuals who shouldn’t become leaders got there because of the poor traits within the people they rule over. It’s one of the reasons why you can’t blame leaders. They are but a single individual who can’t get anything done without the support of the masses. They are our mistake. The hole we unwittingly dug for ourselves.
The other side of the coin is, that those in power, do everything in their power to breed such a society. They enable and psychologically manipulate people and their oposition into submission, to stay in power. It absolutely is not as black and white, as you make it out to be here. In reality it's a war on a hundred fronts. Not everyone fights it or even has the ability to do so, but alot of those, who understand and have the power to do so, are doing their part. I think you didn't even realise that this whole video contradicts your argument. There are people willing to learn, willing to act and spread information. It is about enabling those people instead of being defeatist about it.
I find it fascinating and terrifying that youtube is censoring a normal discussion like this as well.
Well damn I haven’t even watched the video & feel like I can change the channel after reading this comment 😂🤘
This is a common conservative argument since 500 years ago. A true democrat knows these are failed ideas. Truth is that people will always be mainly irrational, but this allows markets to exists anyways. In the same terms, it's said that democracy is wise, because society is wise. You probably won't lurk into each and every detail of a leader's life before choosing. But you'll certainly understand who is a good person or a bad one just because you have access to their ideas. Thing is our current system is affected by media, and media has destroyed any chance to debate ideas. But leaders take advantage and exploit the system. Therefore, it isn't in the people's fault: it's both the media and the leader's fault. These both represent a very small percentage of people and interests. It's easier to explain our problems through this reduced set of interests than pointing at the whole society.
Girl in 1:04 is saying one shouldn't even have guts in oneself like be pessimistic about oneself
It is a fact that every person needs to have be little narcisisstic in nature at a moderate level and not absent of it
The reason the wrong people wind up in power is because power attracts the wrong people.
The power should not be given to those who request it, but those who humbly reject it and people keep pushing them to rule them
it takes crazy to know crazy.
It takes a broken people to cultivate an affinity for social engineering.
it takes a real hero to learn that "with great power, comes great responsibility"
What happens when broken people are enabled by our oppressors? Business as usual.
News, marketing, politics... if your emotions are being peaked at all, then you are being manipulated.
Brian Klaas's Power Corrupts Podcast and Book(Corruptible) is what really gave me an understanding into the psychology of Power Corrupt and gave me serious food for thought.
I am still waiting for the continuation of the podcast, when he continues it. I am a huge fun.
Need the full version of that for sure
Until empathy can be quantified in some way, the power driver will be money and we will always have wrong people at leadership position.
This is the most important video I’ve seen in a while 👏🏼
Another episode where I was hoping for a deeper dive on the topic. Is there more?
Read the books, speakers have written
Gotta buy the book. You should know by now that this is an advertisement channel.
I don’t see the reason why it’s wrong, I embrace my personality
This is the Age of Kali Yuga, age of stress and strife, these folks are here to teach us what we don't want in our leaders. Up to the people along with our learned ones to teach us what to look for in true leadersip. Thak you sir. For the enlightenment
Very good to know. I will watch several times.
Seduction seems to be key concept here. Or fervent emotion. The dark triad elicits strong responses in people, both positive and negative; it's a kind of bipolar charisma, attracting some, repelling others. Average decent people are more boring and are too often overlooked -- because they care less about attaining status and attention (and instead perhaps more about others and getting things done).
The way to de-psychopathize, de-narcissize systems of power and authority is to shut off the emotional spotlights and turn off the taps of fan-obsessed attention. The quiet, unassuming, good-enough candidates , in today's media and technological landscape, are far superior to darlings and charismatic superheros.
Any system, like approval/ranked voting, that prioritizes candidates who are generally well liked but have no obsessive fan base, would probably bore voters to tears and frustrate any voters accustomed to the action-packed duels and capers in what passes today as "politics" and the "news"
But that's a **good** thing. If some process is being managed well, it's going to be practically invisible. That's one of the characteristics of competent management. You only notice garbage men when there aren't any; you only notice your lungs, when you can't breathe.
Boringness, non-charisma -- as well as, of course, a baseline of ethics and knowledge -- should be among the most important characteristics we look for in our leaders.
That's the issue: once you get the hyper-stimulating ball of political theater rolling, you can't stop it. It would be like banning ice cream and pizza in the name of public health. Once habituated to it, the vast majority of people will not voluntarily give up their daily sources of dopamine.
Our best hope would be a mass social movement to encourage the practice of media austerity, similar to how the concepts of dieting and exercise emerged into popular conception in the mid-20th century. Much like how dieting became a necessary practice with the emergence of processed foods, we need to voluntarily restrict our media consumption to the equivalent of broccoli and chicken breast.
The other option (which I'm not a fan of) would be a forceful top-down restructuring of information distribution, developing strict regulations for media in the process. Doesn't take much imagination to see how such extreme government regulation could go wrong, but then again it'd be really hard to turn C-SPAN into an ideological mouthpiece like Pravda or Fox News.
Boring like you, maybe... 🤣
power is morally ambiguous and incredibly seductive. although people with high traits of machiavellianism end up attaining it, there’s one definitive truth; anybody can gain power. the only person who truly cares about your BEST interest is yourself. the world is filled with people who only care about themselves, people who have mastered the art of acquiring power and influence. instead of sheepishly trying to avoid that fact, presenting an “us versus them” mentality, we should equip ourselves with the same weapons powerful people do. fight fire with fire, not ignorance🤦🏽♂️
I have come across people like this in every work place and even in family. They crave to be top dog and seek out positions of power. They do not excell at anything but know how to win people over direct hate on others who do not deserve it and schmooze up to management to get what they want. From what I have learnt they are highly destructive and toxic to be around, sometimes it is better to just walk away and let others that have been bamboozled by them to learn the hard way. They also have an inflated opinion of themselves, like to show boat in front of crowds or groups and try and make negtiive examples of those in their way or dislike.
Nice background drama music
So Is it just "the wrong people" that will always hold power? What is the alternative? and also I think these character traits could also be used for good can't it ?
To become a better and more just society, we have to modify the system into another less centralized, one that doesn't allow anyone to get too powerful. Just voting for candidates once every 4 years is not enough. Democracy has to evolve into the next level
Very well said. Combined with another poster in this comments section, who said "we should start with ourselfes", by being our own government, so that we have no need for authority in the first place.
The system is not to blame, it's the people itself. Which is to say that this "problem" is nigh unsolvable, and we just have to learn to live with it. Become the best version of yourselves, and always help people in whatever way you can. It's futile to have faith in system or people at this point. The only one you can fully trust in this life is yourself... and God.
@heartsouldivine Not all things destined to decay are futile. America's democracy held it together pretty well for more than 200 years, and we're still chugging along in an age of exponential technological development. In the past 10-20 years, we've began to see 'externalities' emerging that the Founding Fathers could have never foreseen. Maybe our current political frustrations are growing pains, or maybe they're a sign that our government needs to be restructured in order to re-align with its original intentions (very European, I know, but so are bidets and those are life-changing lol).
@@NN-cc8uo That's my issue: I can't readily tell if political dysfunction has been the norm for most of American history that we glaze over in the history books, or if it's actually a more recent problem. I still don't think we've reached the level of violent discontent and revolutionary dissidence we had during the 1960's, but maybe people in 2023 are less inclined to engage in violence as a means of venting political frustrations.
BECAUSE THEY SEEK IT, That's why, nothing else.
Victor Wooten one of the best bass player ever, good person, he never seek power.
Careful. Ask yourself: why does this video exist? What is its function? It's effectively telling you there's nothing wrong with the system, it's the people that are broken. The message about personality types may tend to be true, the message about social media maybe true, but think carefully about what it's trying to achieve and who's backing it for what purpose?
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM:
SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world.
Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism” in the Glossary of this book.
Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY:
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available.
Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate with wisdom!
No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
ANARCHY:
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Cont...
Bingo! Power structures themselves are problematic. It's like saying the problem with kings is there are bad kings.
People need autonomy to self-govern. Support demarchy.
This is actually a very helpful and well thought through comment. I'm not here to take sides but to inform myself on the truth and how to make better decisions for myself and the people around me. People pointed out that their visual placement of political figures that are negatively regarded by the public on the topic of liberalism is very odd. While I'm no liberal, at least not to my knowledge, I also find that odd and somewhat manipulative.
In regards to the other point you make. I think there is inconclusive evidence. I don't think they implied that thr inherent system is flawless or even good. I think this video especially deals with the topic that are poeple, rather than our corrupt and rotten system. Maybe they can follow up on that in some other video. Hopefully. If not, who knows, maybe you are right, or maybe its out of their competence.
Well, really I think there's two related but distinct issues here:
- people who want power are the last people who should have it (people problem)
- people who want power end up getting more of it than people who don't (system problem)
We can't really do anything about the first problem, that's just the way people are built. And I don't see how you solve the second problem either; power is not like money, you can't just dish it out in chunks to people.
I detest the way “hope” was presented as a red flag for narcissistic leaders.
It seems like this idea promotes hopelessness, or a complacency to never do anything to promote more fairness in society.
Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it ... We should grant power over our affairs only to those who are reluctant to hold it and then only under conditions that increase that reluctance.
-Frank Herbert, Dune
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
Fear not guys. Society is getting better, quality of life is becoming better. We're living in the future. Sure, there's deception, and fearmongering. That's always been there, even in tribal times, there was the fear of someone slapping you with a rock.
We have information now, we can take the greatest care of our health now. We can work from home, and go for a jog for lunch. We can wear airpods and meditate in silence for an hour. Life is beautiful. No one can control you.
and wtf does this have anything to do with narcissistic assholes ruining our lives?
best video I’ve watched recently . Absolutely Thought-provoking,thanks for sharing
Real power is from the bottom up, not the top down. We think we are lacking in power if we think we are guilty and need punishment to balance that. We will all feel that way unless we forgive those we have grudges against. Forgiveness is the key to responsibility and happiness.
This
More like forgetting
@@MikeGeorgeC0619 Reframing injuries we think we suffer into lessons that we needed to learn anyway slide away in our memory.
@@robertdouglas8895 or stop acting like you have that power to extract such a lesson from trauma, and acting as though you are king of ur own unconscious
@@MikeGeorgeC0619 Either I'm in control or the world is. If the world or other people are in control, then I have to wait for them to change for my life to get better. I don't do that.
The lack of accountability will be our downfall.
narendra modi the indian prime minister is the live example of it.
I'm clueless as to India's political situation. What does he do? What sort of con does he try to sell you on?
@@Pellagrahhe is selling hindutva
@@Pellagrahhe is doing some very good things but he is also doing wrong things
He did no good to the country and the people, a Hatemongering bastard
Every country has a conservative party and a liberal party. In India's case, liberals ruled for 54 years. India needed a conservative leader.
Frank Herbert said it best: it is not that power corrupts, but that the absolutely corrupted seek absolute power.
This is a much needed content🔥
What do men with power want? More power!
I was reading Brian's book "Corruptible" a few days ago. Man did it change my views on power
“The skillset to win and election and a skillset to run a country are wildly different things”
That’s what my father used to tell me
We can always eat the rich if things get really bad!
Sometimes people start out good & the power corrupts them ...power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have been on the hunt for content like this, this thing with narcissistic psychos needs to be systemized in order to be understood, like it happens with personal finances, I mean there is a well established, yet still evolving body of knowledge where to put our money. We have no such thing for our attention in that new information space.
It's very difficult to recognize the most dangerous types of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths--these are the ones that have the self-control to reign in their appetite for destruction and power whenever it would compromise their position of authority. It's the ones that can keep up the con long enough to become 'untouchable' that are both the most dangerous and the hardest to identify in real-time. The perfect crime is the one that lets you keep getting away with it, after all.
lol
Man who speaks in tongues and wags the finger and maintains no ignorance, all is well, and the pauper will bow to me- Anthony D. Sloan 1909
This video just described our money hungry African leader's who only want to get money from the first world rather than seeking actual autonomy and doing something about our problems improving the education system, investing in the youth, technology etc
Africa is a mess rn don't know when we'll ever recover from this mediocrity😢
This seems to be a global problems, just on different scales. Afrika being the most severe example. The principles under which these predatory parasites operate are identical. Just to varying degrees of audacity.
@@gravity00x Well said what to do about it ?
International law and navigating the legal system without experience is insane . Hell even on a state , county level is insane. Constant runaround, I question its ethics .
And money fuels the system (is the system). Thats what needs to be fixed.