How to Rule the Masses | binary-chaos
By: Glen Allan
Tags: Control, Morality, Rule Of Law

One of the most effective ways to rule people is to create laws and morals that by definition create conditions against power accumulation, for the ones you rule only.

Of course, those who are ruled will call it immoral to be rich and to have that much power. That morality was invented to keep them thinking that way, and thereby unwilling to take the actions necessary to gain that much power within the structure of that system.

Overthrowing this kind of systemic power structure then requires a very different approach. The reason Buckminster Fuller’s quote is so good:

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

It is not just a wise understanding of a method for change, but because as these systems were designed from the first capacity of humans to hoard wealth and create inequity (probably the agricultural revolution), those moral considerations were already being used to get people to control themselves, by design. Yes, that kind of moral thinking was already there to begin the ideas of property protection and law. Rules that until that point were never required to consider as such, as that kind of system never existed to create the inequity before that point.

Yes, I am saying morality like this was created to cause the ruled to disempower themselves, while the rulers understood the power of property could not be maintained without it. This is a root of division humans have lived with for most of the time we would call “civilized”.

What I’m not saying is that this was done as a malevolent manipulation and exploitation of human nature. I don’t think the thinking was that sophisticated. I don’t think that’s how control ultimately works. You need true believers. So it probably was the real creation of organized religion that created this imbalance that’s been maintained for as long as it has, and morality was the tool used, backed up by fear of eternal punishments and all that nonsense, carried forward even into things like humanism and humanitarianism.

Now we try to say it’s “sociopaths/psychopaths” that won’t be subject to it and are the ones running the biggest exploitation rings in the world. That’s nice, trying to pathologize it in order to dehumanize those people and legitimize violence and all that came with the different “revolutions” that didn’t really do anything to change it. But that’s a weak argument. It doesn’t require being a sociopath to understand morality is about control and this is just a natural system. I don’t think most sociopaths even believe that. That just requires a different kind of upbringing, one any human would align with if they were raised in it; just like believers in the religions they are raised in (under the protection of moral “truth”).

As Nietzsche correctly predicted, the slave religion would eventually take everything over… So at this point, everything is a moral war of desired outcomes, and very few people can see it purely phenomenologically. So it’s a shit show in the process of collapse.

So in the vein of Fuller, understanding the nature of this reality and that it is completely fabricated to create power imbalance might give clues to how to make it irrelevant. It won’t be won by those fighting for what’s “right”, because that’s playing the same game that was created thousands of years to protect property and create power to begin with.

Every revolution has shown us that just goes in a circle and creates the same thing with new people.

No… The only way to deal with this and change things, is by redefining reality and not playing by those rules at all. Not for or against either side.

For a deep dive of where I go with this check out The Broken World series. This stuff goes deep.