The extent to which we're all subjects of mind-control should be astonishing to those who consider themselves arbiters of their own freewill. And by mind-control I'm not talking about some over-the-top, m-kay, ultra type of zombie rendering. No.
What I mean is the simple and seemingly logical result of peer-pressure writ large. It is precisely the inherent thought-subservience of the human species which renders it under control of another.
It seems to me that whatever our basic nature, the modern human does not seek conflict. But this doesn't preclude an underlying desire to impose one's will upon another. Enter Authority to save the day!
Thusly established and defined, the authorities lay claim to the position of Executor of the Will, which means different things to different folks: collective will to the Socialist; will of the stakeholder to the Capitalist; of the Chairmen to the Corporatist; the people to the Democrat; the individual to the Objectivist.
Yet the Democrat and the Objectivist accede authority to the Republican and the Corporatist, respectively, and spend a great deal of time and effort castigating the other for their ignorance and greed.
But as long as there is an authority, society-at-large is subject to its will. History proves that the individual is not prepared to overthrow authority, even when it is clear that his interests are not being served.
Even the recent uprising in Egypt has shown that the narrative of alternative authority trumps revolution, especially when the alternative happens to be an armed militia which had already served at the will of the president it overthrew. And it is the authorities in the major press publications who defined this as a revolution. That a bunch of bloggers and twitters packed up and went home - bitter at the poo-pooing of those who refused to take delight in "the inspiration" that was the "Arab Uprising" - proves the point that folks don't want to make waves; sometimes not even the faint-hearted, anodyne outrage expressed at the relative safety of one's keyboard.
What I mean is the simple and seemingly logical result of peer-pressure writ large. It is precisely the inherent thought-subservience of the human species which renders it under control of another.
It seems to me that whatever our basic nature, the modern human does not seek conflict. But this doesn't preclude an underlying desire to impose one's will upon another. Enter Authority to save the day!
Thusly established and defined, the authorities lay claim to the position of Executor of the Will, which means different things to different folks: collective will to the Socialist; will of the stakeholder to the Capitalist; of the Chairmen to the Corporatist; the people to the Democrat; the individual to the Objectivist.
Yet the Democrat and the Objectivist accede authority to the Republican and the Corporatist, respectively, and spend a great deal of time and effort castigating the other for their ignorance and greed.
But as long as there is an authority, society-at-large is subject to its will. History proves that the individual is not prepared to overthrow authority, even when it is clear that his interests are not being served.
Even the recent uprising in Egypt has shown that the narrative of alternative authority trumps revolution, especially when the alternative happens to be an armed militia which had already served at the will of the president it overthrew. And it is the authorities in the major press publications who defined this as a revolution. That a bunch of bloggers and twitters packed up and went home - bitter at the poo-pooing of those who refused to take delight in "the inspiration" that was the "Arab Uprising" - proves the point that folks don't want to make waves; sometimes not even the faint-hearted, anodyne outrage expressed at the relative safety of one's keyboard.
