Ever since I began writing my mini-book analysing Leftism/ Political Correctness - Thought Prison - six year ago, when this blog got going;
I have been convinced that the biggest unacknowledged political problem is that 'the people who run things' - that is, the global politico-media intellectual elite, the Mandarinate, the Establishment, The Cathedral (call them what you like) are evil.
By 'evil' I simply mean 'motivated to destroy 'The Good' - and by 'The Good' I simply mean (roughly) Truth, Beauty and Virtue, pretty much as defined traditionally and spontaneously by the mass of ordinary people.
I italicised 'motivated' to emphasise that destruction of The Good by the ruling classes is fundamentally not an accident, it is not due to incompetence, and not (this is important) due to self-interest; it is fundamentally due to their primary, strategic and long-term motivation to destroy The Good.
This understanding is wholly consistent with a mass of facts; including some of the strangest and most obvious facts (such as the cult of paedophilia among the elite) - but I would say that very few people are willing to accept the idea that the elite are evil: very few. But I am one of them.
This - as so often - is a matter of assumptions, of metaphysics. The assumptions structure the 'evidence' - what counts as evidence and how it is interpreted. Each person has to (certainly should) make up his mind on this matter; not on the basis of 'the evidence' but on the basis of which assumption is most plausible.
Take a look at the past few days of Establishment outpouring on the subject Brexit: and make up your own mind. Ask yourself - are these people (and what lies behind them, what they have decided to serve) motivated to promote truth, beauty, and virtue - or to their destruction?
Probably rather tangential, but this makes me think of John Heath-Stubbs' fine little poem with a glimpse of Beowulf from Grendel's perspective (as he approaches Heorot). (And, I suppose, come to that, John Gardner's Grendel, too.)
David Llewellyn Dodds
What would they do differently if they were merely incompetent or selfish? Every once in a while they'd get lucky anddo something right.
Yes, because in a relative universe the corrupt can only know itself by the denial of the good. Hot needs cold to know what hot is, and vice-versa. Similarly, those who deny the need to move toward good (per Kant) are corrupt, and in moving away from good, they must always oppose it. This is why moral choice is such a defining event: one picks a direction, not a destination.
"...the global politico-media intellectual elite, the Mandarinate, the Establishment, The Cathedral (call them what you like) are evil...This understanding is wholly consistent with a mass of facts..."
I think you're exactly correct. It's so stunning that it's difficult for people to get a handle on. People think that everyone thinks like them. Some do not.
There is a logical explanation. It might be wrong but it fits the facts and if you assume it to be correct you'll find yourself more right than wrong in most situations. They're a bunch of psychopaths. Psychopaths behave exactly like this. It could be that the whole of the 250 cycle of Empires is that it takes that long for psychopaths to move up the chain of command, while bringing up their lackeys and fellow Spaths with them. After they take charge the whole thing flings apart.
I know you hate links but you ought to at least read this excerpt from the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter about Stanley who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.
Psychopaths have destroyed whole countries before. Alcibiades was responsible for talking the Athenians into attacking Syracuse. Syracuse was directly responsible for the end of Athens as a power. Definite psychopath.
What Plutarch said about him.
"...He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby assuming more violent changes than the chameleon. That animal, however, as it is said, is utterly unable to assume one colour, namely, white; but Alcibiades could associate with good and bad alike, and found naught that he could not imitate and practice. In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. It was not that he could so easily pass entirely from one manner of man to another, nor that he actually underwent in every case a change in his real character; but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them..."
I ran across an excellent book, "The Psychopath Code" by Pieter Hintjens. An extremely good reference to identify psychopaths and what to do about them. He's a computer programmer who when surrounded by psychopaths decided to analyze them and write a book about them. A free copy at,
@Sam J - I am aware of psychopathy (I am a semi psychiatrist, and indeed teach the subject) - and it has a role to play - but psychopathy is *not* the primary explanation, because psychopaths are (merely) selfish and they are impulsive. They don't help each other unless the payoff is immediate, they don't plan and stick to plans.
What we have is a long term, strategic, careful, incremental process of corruption and inversion - spanning generations. This is purposive evil - and the timescale probably demonstrates that it is *supernatural* evil (assuming that metaphysical assumptions allow for the reality and possibility of the supernatural, imperceptible).
Post a Comment