Indeed, they're generally cunning and clever, but not necessarily highly intelligent.
They've clearly gotten caught up in some form of ideological possession. However, the ideology they follow is almost certainly not the ideology they tell the masses to follow.
Indeed, they're generally cunning and clever, but not necessarily highly intelligent.
They've clearly gotten caught up in some form of ideological possession. However, the ideology they follow is almost certainly not the ideology they tell the masses to follow.
That's why I hedge - is what we think we're seeing, real? Maybe it's just an emergent phenomenon, with sinews of greed and nerves of graft. And honestly for the overwhelming majority of the participants in the egregore, that's almost certainly exactly what it is.
But then there's shit like Epstein, and one wonders just what kinds of nasties have wormed their way into the soft tissues of the halls of power.
Set always strikes a chord, even though I don't hate snakes so much as Robert E. Howard apparently did. Just that cold, emotionless disdain for all human life, worshipper or no. His priests knowing full well he is evil and hates them, but doing it for the power he provides. The Inner Party in a nutshell.
Oh, I might be misinterpreting what you mean by "remove by flame throwers" then. I figured it was basically force.
Although... it does seem that no matter what laws are enacted, they don't get enforced if the powerful don't want them to be. So maybe we are back to the other flame thrower idea.
Part of me thinks that the best answer to abuse of government power is to have the public be so prone to burn those who abuse it that no one wants to wield it for fear of immolation no matter what they do. Sort of a once you take office you lose most of your rights as a citizen until you leave it. Of course, we do the opposite and grant all sorts of immunities to law makers and enforcers, along with all the other bureaucrats. That's never made sense to me... here's a whole bunch of extra power to abuse, but we are going to make sure you don't get punished for doing so like you would if you weren't given the power.
That's interesting, I never heard that before. It makes sense, certainly, but I didn't know it was a wide spread abuser tactic.
It certainly explains the ever expanding and often contradictory nature of regulations: if you know what the rules are they can't accuse you of breaking them if you don't do what they want.
Yep. It's like Lavrentiy Beria said "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." It also has the wonderful side effect of keeping the victims paranoid. They will learn to police themselves of even their own dissenting thoughts, eventually.
That might be an interesting series to write on. Come to think of it, el gato malo posted a "know the signs of abuse" wheel with various things on it, 15 or so, recently, and confusion about the rules is definitely there. You could do a 15 part series on the signs, and wrap it up with "And here is how we see them played out by our own rulers" or something.
Indeed, they're generally cunning and clever, but not necessarily highly intelligent.
They've clearly gotten caught up in some form of ideological possession. However, the ideology they follow is almost certainly not the ideology they tell the masses to follow.
That's why I hedge - is what we think we're seeing, real? Maybe it's just an emergent phenomenon, with sinews of greed and nerves of graft. And honestly for the overwhelming majority of the participants in the egregore, that's almost certainly exactly what it is.
But then there's shit like Epstein, and one wonders just what kinds of nasties have wormed their way into the soft tissues of the halls of power.
I still prefer Conan.
Set always strikes a chord, even though I don't hate snakes so much as Robert E. Howard apparently did. Just that cold, emotionless disdain for all human life, worshipper or no. His priests knowing full well he is evil and hates them, but doing it for the power he provides. The Inner Party in a nutshell.
Why no flame thrower for graft?
Asking for a friend.
Oh, I might be misinterpreting what you mean by "remove by flame throwers" then. I figured it was basically force.
Although... it does seem that no matter what laws are enacted, they don't get enforced if the powerful don't want them to be. So maybe we are back to the other flame thrower idea.
Part of me thinks that the best answer to abuse of government power is to have the public be so prone to burn those who abuse it that no one wants to wield it for fear of immolation no matter what they do. Sort of a once you take office you lose most of your rights as a citizen until you leave it. Of course, we do the opposite and grant all sorts of immunities to law makers and enforcers, along with all the other bureaucrats. That's never made sense to me... here's a whole bunch of extra power to abuse, but we are going to make sure you don't get punished for doing so like you would if you weren't given the power.
That's interesting, I never heard that before. It makes sense, certainly, but I didn't know it was a wide spread abuser tactic.
It certainly explains the ever expanding and often contradictory nature of regulations: if you know what the rules are they can't accuse you of breaking them if you don't do what they want.
Yep. It's like Lavrentiy Beria said "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." It also has the wonderful side effect of keeping the victims paranoid. They will learn to police themselves of even their own dissenting thoughts, eventually.
That might be an interesting series to write on. Come to think of it, el gato malo posted a "know the signs of abuse" wheel with various things on it, 15 or so, recently, and confusion about the rules is definitely there. You could do a 15 part series on the signs, and wrap it up with "And here is how we see them played out by our own rulers" or something.