All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:38
1749 The Origins of Power Lust
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is The Origins of Powerlust.
Part 2.
Power lust is a form of hatred and a form of contempt.
Why would human beings want to be human farmers?
Why would they want to treat livestock?
There was a movie that was out about whether income tax is legal or not.
Aaron Russo, I think his name was, and he said he had a conversation with, I think, David Rockefeller or something, where David Rockefeller was saying, why do you care about all these little people?
You should really only be caring about...
Your own family and your own, you know, the people who are close to you, you know, to help with these people, you know, their cannon fodder, their money fodder, something like that.
And I think that's a telling statement.
Why would you want to have power over a central bank?
Why would you want to type money into your bank account?
There are the obvious reasons, which is that it's reward without effort.
But why would you want reward without effort?
I mean, it is a financial rape of the general population to steal money from them through inflation and fiat currency overprinting.
In the same way that it is physical rape to gain the effects of sexuality without the cause of attraction and seduction.
So why would you want to have this kind of power over others?
Well, the first thing, of course, is that you have to feel very insecure.
You have to feel very insecure and you have to have a sense of entitlement and grandiosity that is utterly out of proportion to your actual abilities.
It's always sort of struck me that...
I think I made reference to this years ago in a podcast where I said, you know, if you think that George Bush is such a great guy, if George Bush is just the guy, the go-to guy to tell you what to do, then subscribe to his newsletter or, you know, have his automated robot secretary call you every morning with a list of what you need to do with half your time and money and then just obey him.
But of course, the reality is that George Bush, I guess junior or senior, are not philosophers, and they will not have anything of wisdom or intelligence to say about how people should live their lives.
Yet by pursuing and taking political power, they are inherently saying that they have this amazing power to tell people what to do.
In other words, they believe that they know how to tell hundreds of millions of people what to do.
By force, if necessary, they're so wise and they're so right and they're so clever and they're so philosophical that they genuinely believe that they have not just the ability but the right to To tell hundreds of millions of people what to do with half their lives and the future generations what to do with 90% of their lives and the unborn who get the debt.
And clearly they haven't earned this.
And clearly they believe that they cannot earn it.
I believe that I can earn people's trust in helping them to live better lives.
I impose nothing upon people.
I would not use force to impose my ideas upon people.
But I genuinely believe...
That I have the voluntary free market capacity to help people live better lives.
Not to tell them what to do, but to provide them knowledge and arguments and insights that will help them to live better lives.
And so I pursue that in the free market of voluntary podcasting.
I don't pursue that through getting hold of the guns of the state and making people do what I want them to do.
I mean, I have zero desire.
In fact, that would just make me revolted.
I have a revulsion against that very idea that that would be a course of action that would even be conceivable.
But people who want political power genuinely believe that they have the right, the obligation, and the necessity to use violence to tell other people what to do.
And they clearly are doing that that way because they deep down know that they don't have that, right?
So there's this split.
And wherever you have a great insecurity, you have great grandiosity.
Insecurity and grandiosity are two sides of the same coin.
So, if you're really insecure about your life, you might find some leader to tell you what to do.
So, your insecurity is, I don't know what to do, but your grandiosity is you project this perfect wisdom onto a god or a political leader or a guru or someone like that.
So, beware.
Beware. Wherever you see insecurity, you will see the most enormous grandiosity, and that's going to show up somewhere.
Sometimes it's hard to know.
Or it's hard to tell exactly where that's going to show up, but it will show up somewhere.
People who are beaten down will praise to the skies some external object into whom they get to project their grandiosity.
When you beat a child down, you create the potential energy, and it's necessary to release it in some way, the potential energy for worship, for grandiosity, because somebody who's beaten down is going to have to develop a compensatory grandiosity To deal with the fact that they're so beaten down.
The more power you take away from someone, the more they project their powerlessness in an exaggerated opposite format through grandiosity, which is why slave populations tend to be very religious, because they're so beaten down that they project their grandiosity onto a god.
That's why, in a way, also there's a Martin Luther King for the blacks, but not for the whites.
Ah, that's complicated.
Forget that one. I mean, that could make the case, but let's not...
Oh, Tangent Horse is pulling me apart!
They're tearing me apart!
But it is important to understand that the insecurity and grandiosity go hand in hand, and insecurity is masked by grandiosity.
So some people act out their insecurity and project their grandiosity, and some people act out their grandiosity and project their insecurity.
So the slaves act out their insecurity and project their grandiosity onto the masters or the gods or whoever, the priests.
Whereas the political leaders act out their grandiosity and project their insecurity onto the people.
Oh, you see, the people are confused.
They don't know what to do.
They need us to tell them what to do.
But that's their own insecurity that they're talking about.
It's 99.9% of the time when people are describing the world, they're simply describing disowned parts of themselves or traumatized parts of themselves.
So people say, oh, human nature is inherently violent.
It's like, no, your nature is inherently violent based on your traumatized circumstances.
But that's not human nature.
Anybody who's talking about human nature is talking about themselves and is projecting it onto humanity as a whole.
And it's a way of normalizing their trauma.
So if somebody says, human beings are inherently violent, what he's saying is that my parents are not morally wrong for being violent because the human beings are inherently violent.
So it's not their fault.
They're off the hook.
And therefore, I can go around being violent and act out their violence rather than criticize and condemn it emotionally and morally within myself, thus opening up the possibility of alternate action and the certainty of moral horror in dealing with my history.
I mean, this is, this is, I mean, I think we've been through this stuff before, so I think we can kind of understand it.
So insecurity and grandiosity go hand in hand.
And insecurity and grandiosity are pretty much innate to political power.
Insecurity is projected.
The insecurity... And I remember reading this.
Somebody was talking about Jean Gatien, who is a sort of mealy-mouthed politician up here in Canada, who was prime minister for many years.
And some psychologist was talking about him, saying, you know, these people, they just appear very confident, but you pierce through the surface, and there's emptiness and narcissism and a real hollowness within.
And I think he's quite right.
I've met... When I was in the debating...
Team for my college, a lot of people were into debating who wanted to go into politics, and they were empty, hollowed-out, manipulative lunatics.
I mean, normotics is the phrase that I've heard, which is a kind of psychosis that focuses on the appearance of normality.
American Psycho, which is a film that I would love to do a review on soon, shows this in a more extreme case, but...
Yeah, it is very, very empty stuff.
It is very empty and scary stuff to pierce beneath the veneer of people who are that primitive, that unconscious, and who are projecting that much of their personalities and prior trauma onto the world as a whole.
I mean, that's this creepy, crazy stuff that goes on whenever you begin to penetrate into any of the psyches of these sorts of people.
I remember that very vividly.
There was one guy who was actually working in the Prime Minister's office.
He was one of the most horribly empty and decayed souls that I think I've ever met in my life.
And these kinds of relationships, romantically in all other areas, are depressingly repetitive.
And you see a lot of emotional volatility in these kinds of relationships because human beings are neither, of course, totally powerless nor omnipotent, but are a combination of many things, an ecosystem.
But whenever an overabundance of one character aspect is inflicted, And this is not always helplessness.
Parents can inflict grandiosity onto their children as well, which is the feeling of omnipotence.
That is a dangerous thing. My mom tried to do this with me as well.
Oh, you're brilliant.
You're this, you're that. She attempted to get...
I mean, she projected all of her grandiosity onto me.
And that was a thing I had to really fight hard to reject, this idea of being the golden boy and the genius and this and that.
It was not... Not pretty.
And not a good thing to have floating around at all.
And it took a lot of work to resist that.
Because I had a lot of abilities.
And she would introduce me with pride in these abilities.
So when I took a grade 13 writing class, when I was in grade 8, my mom trumpeted this all over.
When I took advanced computer science, when I was In grade nine, my mom trumpeted this all over and so on, and it was just, she considered, you know, that this was when I began to write novels and poetry, and it was, ah, you know, genius and spitting image of my writer father and intellectual and so on, right? Now, some may believe that I did not escape that curse, but I know that I did.
But you can project your own vanities.
And you see this, of course, sometimes with sports parents as well.
This can happen. But this is a volatile relationship because people aren't powerless or omnipotent.
And so when they feel powerless, they project their omnipotence.
You get this compensatory omnipotence which they then project onto other people and vice versa.
And so the typical scenario is you have the abusive husband and the beaten damn wife.
He's projecting his humiliation or inflicting his own unconscious humiliation onto her and she's inflicting her power On to him, her grandiosity on to him, so he's all-powerful and she must submit and so on.
And there is both a need for this and a hatred of this, right?
So when you have this kind of displaced, mutant, diseased in many ways psychology within you, then you both need people to project your disowned selves onto, your unconscious selves onto you in order to protect you from the trauma of what has really happened to you.
You desperately need vessels, poison containers, to spill your guts into, so to speak, but at the same time you hate them because you're enslaved to that and you're not progressing and you're not growing and you're simply re-enacting trauma from here to eternity.
So there's a sense of relief and there's a sense of desperation, which is true of any addiction, true of any drug.
The drug addict loves and hates the drug, loves it for the immediate relief and hates it for the long-term catastrophes.
And of course the same is true with this kind of thing.
So first of all, you need to be filled with a lot of grandiosity.
You know, you are the rulings, you are the masters, you are the upper class, you are and so on, the sort of the polo, right?
The sort of J.Crew polo mythology, which is, you know, very common, you know?
And it has a lot to do with wealth and power within society.
So there's a lot of that kind of stuff where you're taught that you're superior, you're better.
And this very often will come with a false kind of gentleness to it.
Well, you know, we are fortunate in society and we kind of owe it to people to use our wealth and our power Wisely.
You can see this with Bill Gates, you know, that it's important for me to use the money that has been stolen from people through copyright laws.
It's important for me to use this money well and wisely.
So there can be a kind of paternal, quote, benevolence, which is really condescension and guilt.
You can see this kind of stuff going on.
In philanthropists as well, they don't necessarily question the source of their wealth, right?
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates in particular.
I mean, the source of their wealth is the corruptions within the stock market, the fiat money-fueled overcharged stock market and copyright laws.
I'm not saying that these guys wouldn't make a heck of a lot of money in a free market.
I'm sure they would, but it's not.
It's not these mutant, tumoresque kinds of fortunes that go on.
So there can be a kind of condescension around it, you know, like, well, we are just superior, but we're going to try and use our superiority for the betterment of others.
And the source of that, quote, superiority is, you know, it really can't be examined.
So there is all of that going on for people.
But I think that there's an even more fundamental thing that occurs for people in the realm of this kind of stuff that we need to dig into, and it's a difficult and painful topic, so I hope that you will bear with me as we go to it.
And this really taps into one of the basic questions about the world.
Why is there so much hatred in the world?
Well, for me, the answer is quite simple.
There is hatred in the world because people or society as a whole claims to protect children, claims to want to protect children, claims to love and treasure children, and yet doesn't.
That to me is the fundamental reason why there is so much hatred in the world.
Nothing breeds hatred like hypocrisy.
Nothing in this world breeds hatred like hypocrisy, and nothing breeds that most fundamentally refined and perpetual and malevolent form of hatred more than moral hypocrisy.
That is where the true, darkest, deepest vintage of human hatred springs from, is moral hypocrisy.
A man who is abused as a child knows full well that he is abused as a child in the middle of, within earshot, of hundreds of people who all claim to love and protect children and who are all incredibly sentimental about the value and virtue of family and children are so precious and they grow up so fast and we love our children and children are so wonderful and children of the future and Whitney Houston and blah blah blah.
I mean, imagine how Whitney Houston's children feel.
She sang this song about children of the future and teach them well and the most precious gift of all, and yet she's raising them.
She's addicted to drugs and has them around Bobby Brown and all that sort of thing.
Bobby Brown! So, when you claim virtues and then act in opposition, there is a special kind of hatred.
And the hatred is that you know the virtues and you act in complete opposition to them.
I was listening to I think it's Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens.
Where he talks about Salman Rushdie, who of course in 1989 had a fatwa struck against him from the Ayatollah Khomeini for the satanic verses.
And he said it's amazing the degree to which people flee the battlefield when this basic moral question comes up.
When people say, well, maybe the book was offensive and this and that.
Well, but do we at least understand or accept that issuing death commandments, issuing putting out a hit on a literary figure is wrong?
And he said, you know, you'd be shocked at the number of people We're good to go.
High noon is not the exception, it is the rule.
And the sad thing is that people not standing up for basic virtues is so common, even when the stakes are relatively low, when it's not people coming to town with guns, but, you know, you just may face some disapproval from people for your moral stand.
There's a huge amount of hypocrisy when it comes to morality within society as a whole.
Again, it's almost not worth talking about because it's so common, but it is worth talking about because it's something that needs to be seen.
You need to see it. You need to see and understand this.
You can't understand what happens in society.
One of the biggest and deepest things that happens in society, you cannot understand it if you cannot see morality.
The abusive, brain-sadist-twisting moral hypocrisy that lies at the root of society.
You can't see it.
You can't understand it. It takes a while to figure it out.
But, I mean, imagine if Christopher Hitchens went and killed someone for a book that Christopher Hitchens found offensive.
I mean, imagine Christopher Hitchens went and put out a hit on a priest because he found the priest's views offensive to his atheism.
Can you imagine the moral condemnation that would pour down upon him?
And yet, the Muslims and Salman Rushdie, and not all Muslims, of course, right, but just this crazy bunch in Iran, and then it's all relative, and, you know, well, the book was offensive, and it's understandable, and this, that, and the other, right?
That is so common.
I mean, what can you even say?
I mean, I faced the same thing myself.
People say, yeah, you know, women have the rights to leave abusive relationships, and yet adult children don't.
I mean, that's just ridiculous.
It is something that is, I mean, again, there really aren't even any words for the degree of moral hypocrisy in society.
People say to children, don't steal, but then it's moral to pay taxes.
They say, don't kill, but then it's moral and noble and heroic to join the military.
I mean, it's so ridiculous that it's hard to even know how to phrase it.
And I'm sorry that I'm doing such a bad job of phrasing it.
But society as a whole breaks its arm patting itself on the back about its theoretical moral virtues.
But lo and behold, when you come up to someone and say, you know, it's really important to act on those virtues and to take even a modicum of risk for those virtues, well, people then, you know, fade away. They vanish.
They dissolve into nothingness when you actually ask them to live by their values rather than just piously praise themselves for having those values.
I mean, libertarianism is subject to exactly the same thing.
I mean, libertarians are very pious in declaring that the state is immoral and that support for the state is corrupt and immoral.
But then when you point that out, that that applies to their personal relationships where they can actually do something about it, why?
They all dry up, vanish, and blow away.
Not all, but most. I mean, I understand it.
It sounds more condemnatory than I actually feel.
I understand it.
It took me a little while to really get it.
In fact, it took me an embarrassingly long time because, like most people, I'm taught to listen to what people say rather than observe what they do.
And if you've ever been in a situation where you're being mistreated and you reach out to people around you for some moral support and moral help, it is truly shocking.
The degree to which people will simply vanish and be very uncomfortable to be put on the spot and actually live according to their values.
They'll be very uncomfortable about it.
They will not take a stand where there's even the slightest risk of disapproval or condemnation or anything like that.
They simply won't.
And they won't be honest about it, right?
They won't be honest and say, you know, I'm really more talking about ethics than actually doing ethics.
Ethics for me is more of a noun than a verb.
It's more of something that I like to talk about with regards to myself rather than actually do.
Because ethics is a very hard thing to do.
It's a very hard thing to actually be ethical rather than just talk about ethics and hold views.
And I put myself in this category as well.
I mean, for the majority of my adult life, I was all about the initiation of force is immoral.
Oh, I'm going to have to go over to dinner with my family because it's been planned for a while.
not a connection.
It's a connection that's only made in the avoidance.
It's sort of like when you hold opposing magnets, try and push opposing magnets together.
It's something that you only notice in the aversion, right?
You only really notice ethics showing up in the world through the aversion that people have to uniting action with ideal, to actually acting with integrity.
And it took me so long to figure this out.
I mean, Well, if the initiation of force is immoral and support for the initiation of force is corrupt, well, my mother initiated force against me as a child, so that's immoral.
I mean, it's so bizarre, but it took me so long to just figure that out.
It started to really come out in therapy, I guess, in my early 30s, but it just took a long time to actually go, okay, initiation of the use of force is immoral.
Who affects me more, the IRS or...
My mom or my family as a whole.
I think that's really, really important to understand.
when you define something as immoral, the first place that you should look is people in your life who have failed that moral standard.
People in your life, not people in Washington, not people in Iraq, not people in the third plane of n-dimensional X where God lives, not people in the past, not people in the future.
I mean, that's in a way the first place where we want to look because those are all safe places to, quote, exercise our morals.
They're just safe places to exercise our morals.
Like video games are safe places to exercise our aggression or our assertiveness, let's say, whereas actually doing it in life is fraught with the risk of rejection and hostility and so on.
And so people who hold values hold those values as a sort of hobby, but they believe it's a calling.
And when you actually say this hobby should become real, then it is something that...
It's deeply shocking. It is deeply shocking.
To realize that ethics impact relationships.
It's deeply shocking.
And everything that you see in the world is about ethics as a narrative, ethics as a story, ethics as a fairy tale, ethics as a posture.
Ethics is self-praise.
Ethics is pompous false self-reinforcement.
Not ethics as actuality.
Not ethics as actionable principles.
So ethics are allowed to be strong only in environments where they can have no effect.
This old story about Lincoln, right?
That Lincoln freed the slaves by a stroke of his pen only in the areas that he did not control.
And in the areas where he did control, he did not free the slaves.
In other words, he acted on his, quote, ethics only in an area where he had no control.
I mean, I know it's not the full story, but it's just, you know, using it as a metaphor for the moment.
And people will do that. They will be very passionate about politics and Ron Paul and fluoridation and 9-11 and vaccines and all stuff that they actually can't control.
People will be passionate about the Iraq War, which they can't control.
They will be passionate about old age security, like welfare and old age pensions and all this other kind of stuff that they simply cannot control.
And that is inevitable.
That is a natural and awful thing that occurs for people.
You are only allowed to be passionate about the morals in areas that you have no chance whatsoever of having the slightest effect upon.
Or God. Pray to God.
Praying. Prayer is just a hand-clasping, pompous, self-praising way of saying, I don't care enough to do anything real, so I'm going to pray, because otherwise I'd actually have to do something, and I don't want to.
I don't want to do something, because the moment you take a moral stand, then, you know, the trials come out of the woodwork.
That's inevitable, and...
And it's not so bad that the trolls come out of the woodwork, right?
That's not what is so terrible about taking a moral stand.
What's terrible about taking a moral stand is not that lunatics will attack you.
I mean, that's a given.
That's not the issue.
The issue, the main problem, what is truly terrible about taking a moral stand is not that trolls attack you, not that bad people attack you.
Not that crazy people flay you in their own minds.
What is truly horrible about taking a moral stand is not the degree to which bad people attack you, but the degree to which, quote, good people do nothing.
Well, and by doing nothing, they do an enormous amount, right?
They say, no, no, no. See, I don't want to actually be good.
I just want to talk about good.
It's a narrative, right?
I mean, asking people who talk a lot about virtue ethics and the non-aggression principle to actually take a stand morally, you get the same looks as if you were to ask a Dungeons& Dragons player to get involved in a real sword fight.
You'd be like, what? Yeah.
No, no, no, no. This is a role-playing game.
It's not even a sport, let alone actual combat.
So how does this all tie together?
I fooled you it doesn't. Okay, I think it does.
So, people who grow up having been wronged by priests, parents, politicians, teachers, they grow up with a lot of anger.
They grow up with a lot of anger.
And there's two ways to diffuse this anger.
The first way, of course, is to simply say, oops, right?
Well, the first thing is prevention, right?
Which is to have the children not be put into the situation where they're being harmed or controlled or abused by others, right?
That, of course, is the best.
Prevention is better than cure.
But that's not really the way that society works at the moment.
And so, the other best way to do it It's for the adults in society to say, you're right.
You know, we talk about way back in Untruth the Tyranny of Illusion, right?
For the parents to say, the adults to say, you're absolutely right.
We talked a lot about ethics and virtue, but we really don't know what the hell we're talking about, and society really needs to be rewritten, and we have failed to live up to our standards, and let's sit down and see if we can work out something better with our significant apologies.
That, well, that would be beyond shocking.
Instead, you see, what happens is that people just dodge the question.
They just avoid. They just do the slippery brain goo dodge-o-rama, you know, like it goes on, society is not violent because it's voluntary with the social contract.
And you say, well, if it's voluntary, then we don't need enforcement, but we need enforcement.
Right? So they just do this kind of stuff, where children are taught that ethics are absolute, and they are aggressively, assertively, or sometimes violently punished for ethical transgressions.
But then, you see, all too tragically, when the children become adults and begin to question the morals of their elders, oh, boy, did you see that?
Ethics just became completely relative.
Right? So when you were a child, you were held to these absolute ethical standards.
I mean, stupid shit like being late for class gets you punished with no No ifs, ands, or buts.
But then when you confront your elders on the lack of connection and sometimes the opposite connection, it seems, between their virtues and what they're actually doing, why then things are complicated and we did the best that we could and, you know, you're mistaken and things get all kinds of relative, right?
So when adults have power, then ethics are absolute.
When they have power over children and, in fact, power over...
taxpayers through society and so on.
Ethics are then absolute.
But when you question these same adults and these same priests and these same teachers and these same politicians about their own knowledge of an exercise of virtue, why suddenly everything becomes completely relativistic, don't you know?
Isn't that a shocking turnaround?
And that really, really enrages the living shit out of people deep down.
And this, my friends, is where society sits for the present and for certainly the immediate and foreseeable future.
This is where society sits.
It's a basic and fundamental truth about this world that we've seen over and over and over again in our community and outside of our community, this basic fundamental truth.
It's that whatever you lie to yourself about is used to control you.
Whatever you lie to yourself about will be used to control you.
This is very, very fundamental.
And this is why you really can't own yourself if you lie to yourself.
You can't. Because if you lie to yourself, then you have to lie to yourself about lying to yourself, right?
That's the huge problem.
If I say I'm lying to myself, then I can't really be controlled by that.
But if I lie to myself and then I must deny lying to myself, then I am controllable because I have an area in my mind where I just cannot go.
I have an area in my mind where I just cannot go.
I have a landmine in myself where I just cannot go, where I'm lying to myself and I'm lying to myself about lying to myself.
So if I say I'm virtuous, but I reject, resist, and avoid actually acting on that virtue, I can't sustain that contradiction.
I can't sustain it in my mind.
Contradictions cannot be sustained in consciousness.
They can only be maintained in the unconscious, in an unstable form.
If I say I'm a moral man and then a situation arises where I need to actually put my values into practice and I avoid doing that, then I can't say to myself, well, I guess morality has just talked to me.
I'm not a good person. In fact, I'm the worst person in some ways because I know what morality is.
I have talked about morality up, down, here and there, and yet when I actually have the chance to act on it, I fade, falter, run away, and feel resentful at whoever is asking me to be moral.
Very few people can say that to themselves.
That requires a humility and a level of self-trust that is extremely rare among people.
Extremely rare. So...
So what you have to do is you have to say, well, whoever asked me to be moral is in the wrong, or it doesn't affect my principles, or it's just two people fighting.
I don't need to take a side. It's not important to figure out what's going on.
Let me go back to writing another essay about the non-aggression principle, or whatever, right?
But you have to say to yourself that it is moral to not act on your moral values, that you're doing the right and wise and correct thing by not getting involved, by not picking sides, by whatever, right?
So you have a basic belief that morality equals specific and certain actions, and then when you're asked to perform those actions, you avoid it, and you come up with an entirely different and opposing set of ethics called don't get involved, don't pick sides, right?
So you say the state is evil and those who support the state must be at least corrupt if they do so knowingly and consciously.
But then when you're asked to act on that, how can a moral man continue to associate with corrupt people who are supporting an evil and murderous institution?
Well, that's extreme, isn't it?
I mean, when you're actually asked to act on these things, this is, you know, why people get uneasy around philosophy.
They don't get uneasy around FDR. This is a philosophical argument.
It may be right, it may be wrong.
I think it's pretty damn ironclad.
Certainly always happy to hear arguments of the contrary.
define something as evil, which gives us a great sense of moral purpose and clarity, and we are heroes of moral fortitude, and we get a lot of action hero of the self, pomposity and grandiosity out of that.
Ah, I have defined what is immoral, and I know what is right and what is wrong, and then you're actually asked to act on it, and suddenly everything becomes relative, and everything becomes strategic, right?
Well, that is a hard thing.
And so people have to lie to themselves about that, and they have to lie to themselves, and they have to then feel resentful at whoever is bringing up the situation which tests them morally, which tests their actual integrity, like me or whoever, right?
Whoever. They feel resentment towards that.
And this is the hook.
This is the soft tissue that power lust puts its hook into.
Whatever we lie to ourselves about will be used to control us, inevitably.
And there are vast hordes and legions of people in this world who are constantly sniffing for lies, who are constantly sniffing out.
They have Dulé Hill's Super Sniffer from Psych.
They are constantly sniffing out To control people.
To control people.
If you lie to yourself about being good, virtue will be used to control you.
If you manipulate yourself into believing that you're good while failing to act upon that goodness and telling yourself that both action and failing to act are morally good and switch back and forth between these contradictory ideas or approaches, that exact same phenomenon will be used to control you.
And there is a hatred in the control of others, and the hatred is the hatred of hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy is the weakness that allows for the tentacles of control to slither into the soul and clamp down on it hard and squeeze the last remaining little white drops of life out from its innards.
If I lie to myself, I will do anything to avoid...
The truth that I have lied to myself about.
I will do almost anything, and that is what is used to control me.
If I am hypocritical about virtue, if I am absolute in theory and relativistic in practice, then that will be used to control me.
That will be used to control me, and then the social contract will be inflicted upon me, which is absolute in theory and relativistic in practice.
If I have moral contradictions that I refuse to resolve within myself that I specifically and extreme that I specifically and strenuously avoid resolving in myself.
Then I will be fundamentally helpless and paralyzed before a moral contradiction that fits like a key into the lock of my own hypocrisy.
It is my own avoidance of moral integrity.
It is my own moral hypocrisy that renders me susceptible to the moral hypocrisy of statism and religiosity.
There is a hatred in the world for moral hypocrisy, for the degree to which morals are used to puff up the false self rather than create integrated action in the true self.
And that hatred is acted out against children, but most importantly that hatred is acted out in this analysis by those in power to their sheeple, to their victims, who aren't really victims.
People are only unable to see the moral hypocrisy of statism, the moral contradictions of statism, because they're avoiding the moral hypocrisy and moral contradictions within their own beliefs and actions.
You understand, right? And so the lust for power is an unconscious identification of the moral hypocrisy of the majority.
Who did nothing to protect the power seeker as a child?
Right? Think of what Bill Clinton went through.
Think of what George Bush went through.
Everybody envied George Bush, though he was brutally treated by his mother and was blowing up frogs when he was a child.
Bill Clinton was raised by a single mom with an alcoholic father who was destructive and abusive.
You quickly get, if you have any brains at all, that society is full of moral hypocrisy if you're a child who's being abused.
Because you hear everyone talk about the moral virtues of child protection and nobody acts in it.
So when you get older, you know the key of statism or religiosity or the cult of the family that's going to fit into this lock of moral hypocrisy in society as a whole.
And because you hate people, you will use their hypocrisies to control, dominate, and destroy them.
The state is about destroying people.
The state is not about protecting people.
I mean, look at what is happening right now.
People's lives and economics are being destroyed.
And until the central evils of child abuse are exposed and talked about and discussed and hypocrisies within society are brought wriggling like cavefish out to the light, these destructions and predations...
▲
Export Selection