Where did the Leadership Go?

I must follow the people. Am I not their leader? —Benjamin Disraeli

A leader is a dealer in hope. —Napoleon Bonaparte

A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd. —Max Lucado

He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander. —Aristotle

Mohandas Gandhi

Pierre Trudeau

Great leaders capable of taking  big decisions seem to be rapidly disappearing on all continents. In Europe no more heavy-weights like  Churchill, De Gaulle, Adenauer, Helmut Schmidt and Willie Brandt; instead we have lightweights like Barroso, Rasmussen, Lady Ashton, Hollande and Merkel.



  In Canada no more leaders like Lester Pearson, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, Joe Clarke and Pierre Trudeau; instead we have Stephen Harper and our famous mayor, Rob Ford. Not sure how to label the US leadership. Once there was Teddy and then Delano Roosevelt, but nothing since Lyndon Johnson;  Bill Clinton serving his banksters by scrapping Glass-Steagall, Hilary uttering Cold War nonsense and associating Putin with Hitler, Obama preaching America's exceptionalism and supporting disasters led  by his appointed trouble makers like Victoria Nuland's PNAC gang, As for the UK we have Mr Cameron, America's servant, and the ever present Lady Ashton parroting whatever the script prescribes.

Winston Churchill

There was a time when leaders were capable of sitting with their sworn enemies to hammer out deals. At Yalta, Roosevelt sat a the same table with Churchill and Stalin. Now we have Obama refusing to talk with Putin, hiding behind NATO and resorting to pouting and sanctions. Western leadership is now like a club house filled with self-serving mediocrities.  Ironically the only country with a real leader is Russia but Europe, US and Canada won't let him sit at the table for fear they might have to hear something that conflicts with the US song sheet they must follow.

Nelson Mandela

Musafa Kamal Attaturk.

Why do they want to destroy Vladimir Putin? Well first of all he is Russian and therefore the enemy of Washington, their loyal EU puppets and the NATO war machine.  I suppose other reasons for  a start might be he is an opponent of Washington's PNAC hegemonic ambitions, a critic of the mob scene in Kiev, resisting US ambition to appoint and control the leadership in Syria and Ukraine, and his condemning them for the failed state disasters they left in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and now in Ukraine plus US tolerating wealthy Saudi Arabian's support of Jihads,
Also a reminder that Russia hasn't invaded anyone; Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia after the mentally limited US hand-picked Ukrainian leader, Oleksandr Turchnov declared that his Russian speaking citizens were no longer entitled to their language.  NYT and Globe and Mail pundit's are either avoiding this truth that doesn't fit their script or having great difficulty understanding this. If Canada had similarly declared the nullification of the French language Quebec would have instantly succeeded to join France so the departure of Crimea is clearly understandable. With the US fleet positioned in Sevastopol, Poroshenko, the chocolate oligarch new leader of Ukraine, is determined against their will to bring Crimea back into the arms of Ukraine. Poroshenko just a few years ago was described by the CIA as a self enriching crook, but he is now our crook and therefore Washington's and the EU's anointed leader.

Charles De Gaulle

In a nutshell, where have all the real leaders gone? Why have they been replaced with such self serving mediocrities? De Gaulle and Schmidt wouldn't have put up with any of this.

The NYT and Fox News have been preaching for some time pure propaganda that Vladimir Putin is an evil dictator. After cleaning up the financial mess from the rape of Russia's assets during the IMF aided Yeltsin period of 'Gangster Capitalism' that created overnight billionaires (most of whom now sit with their laundered stolen wealth in Britain) and impoverished the population, Putin raised the standard of living, put the economy on a sound footing and enjoys a popularity rating far above that of any Western leader. Loves animals too. He rightly imprisoned Mikhail Khodorkovsky who was recognized by the CIA of amongst other offences tax evasion including 10 billion dollars of money laundering. Putin must be bad but not sure why. The weak but obedient rabble that we now have as leaders now sit around a table to decide how Vladimir Putin and the Russian people should be punished. To save the taxpayer some money why don't these same leaders apply sanctions at the same time to America's and the UK's leaders for the far greater crimes they have committed.  Their list of crimes is long; in the past two decades they have left Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Vietnam in ruins and millions have been slaughtered, but all is forgiven without sanctions and lets move on and focus on Putin. Russia in modern times hasn't invaded anyone while the West has been busy; but no matter, because maybe if we upset their borders enough they just might and NATO will have something to do. The Charge of the Light Brigade will be reborn.

Why is this happening to leadership? 

The veritable explosion of sources for information through the internet  challenges our  conventional view of where we can find the truth. Leaders were once looked to as a top down source for guidance, but now the internet has opened up a global village for debate the moment a leader speaks and every voice must be heard. Admittedly this is a good thing, Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether a scholar, an oracle, just a journalist or an ignorant bigot. The internet has opened up many sites that challenges the mainstream media. The cacophony is deafening. How to choose? Eric Fromm's famous book written in 1941 'The Escape from Freedom'  is highly relevant reading today. Fromm emphasizes the human tendency of retreating from intellectual freedom by adopting the values and ideas of others. The choices  presented in this exploding information age are vast and heightens the confusion.The pundits and politicians of many stripes try to guide us through this swamp with many of them like our Canadian PM, Mr Harper part of the swamp and adding fuel to the confusion. We all have our favourites depending on our biases. 

Can real leaders survive in this jungle of information surrounded by a circus of media consultants, supporting politicians, strategists, back room specialists, pollsters, script writers, film makers, and with equally well financed attacking opponents tearing this all to shreds. Where is Waldo in all this? With all this expertise will wealth determine the winner? Can they fabricate, cut and paste false leaders to serve their ideologies and objectives? Will any leader say anything that they have personally thought out or written? Will we be voting for well financed committees with the false leaders videoed by aides simply waving at a distance as they step out of helicopters?

I wonder what it cost to develop and support great leaders in the past in comparison with what it costs today to produce these new humanoid leaders backed by their armies of helpers?

It helps to be a bit of a Fanatic Sociopath if you want to be a Leader

A fanatic is a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm who displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions. The fanatic therefore refuses to think further and consequently, there is no way to change course.

A passionate and dedicated humanist is someone who believes that man can bring about change through his own efforts and might be considered a fanatic with firm convictions but free of any psychopathic tendencies.   

a sociopath is a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
 

Its okay to be a fanatic, even a fanatic sociopath, if you live as a hermit in a forest because only the wind and the animals have to put up with what you do and what you have to say. And its okay to be a fanatic, and a bit silly if it is simply about something unimportant like rooting for your favorite sports team or reacting passionately to the latest dreamy teenage rock idol. This subject is a slippery slope because if we accept the definition that fanatics live with blinkers on and therefore cannot visualize any alternatives then there are categories of fanatics to consider because some are convinced that they know the absolute truth and have no patience with nonsense, and at the other extreme there are others who are simply blinded by their psychopathic obsession to take control irrespective of any underlying consequences. This essay, as the blog title implies, focuses on fanatical and often psychopathic behaviour in major national and international leadership roles Lets take a look here at some examples of these alternatives but first of all lets look at the unfortunate dumb fanatics.

• Just plain dumb fanatics. This group is generally poorly educated, lacks knowledge and typically driven by a single issue. They will support any leader of any stripe who will support their cause. Genghis Khan might be acceptable. These include Right to Bear Arms nuts who want to pack a gun wherever they might go, anti gays, racists, and many paranoids exhibiting extreme and irrational fear and distrust of others. They are seduced by the media that convinces these saps to reject all social entitlements, like for example, Universal Health Care and a decent Minimum Wage, that most civilized countries offer.  Addicted to talk radio and Fox News that feeds their confusion, paranoia and anger they act out of spite and harm themselves. These are life's losers who provide the support and cannon fodder for the fanatic sociopaths who posses power. Reference reading: The Legend of The Pied Piper of Hamelin.
• 
  
  

Fanatic Sociopaths with intelligence and driven by ego they seize power or gain it through public support. The list is endless on a World scale. Heading this category on any list for the last 100 years would certainly include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Maggie Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Pinochet and Dick Cheney who in their fanatical promotion and pursuit of their objectives caused, without remorse, the destruction and overthrow of nations  and the death of many thousands of people. 

Of late I feel compelled to add President Obama to this list of sociopaths. His ongoing personal role in ordering drone attacks, supplying weapons to jihad terrorist to destabilize the popularly elected Syrian Government knowing full well that it is causing the death of many innocent civilians, his condemnation of Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange for publicly exposing this murderous truth are clearly signs of the behaviour of a sociopath.

Here is a chilling and devastating YouTube documentary that reinforces my claim that we are being led by sociopaths 

 Here is a rogues gallery of some who have caused the death of many thousands of innocent victims. 

PM Tony Blair of Britain who joined with President George Bush into a disastrous war under false pretenses with Iraq that caused the destruction of a nation and the death of a million people and the refugee flight of another 4 million.

Ton Blair

George Bush

Henry Kissinger

 Incredibly, Henry Kissinger—the man who rivals Pol Pot for the dubious honor of being the person responsible for the death of the largest number of innocent people in South East Asia (and far surpasses Pol Pot in criminality when one factors in Kissinger's various levels of responsibility for wholesale slaughter and repression in other parts of the world)—still wields significant power in the United States; but his role as eager facilitator of mass murder, totalitarian repression and other atrocities is never discussed in polite society.

Dick Cheney

And who can leave out Dick Cheney who as Bush's VP led the "Cake Walk" into Iraq and has been an ardent supporter of all other military interventions since then including the application of torture. His face wears a permanent sneer. His pals include the infamous Chicken Hawks who never had to face an enemy in battle but willingly caused the death of millions.

The Psychopaths - Chicken Hawks who knowingly have caused millions to die - Includes Rumsfeld, Bolton, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Zoellick,Schmitt

 General and Dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). His years in power were marked by inflation, poverty and the ruthless repression of opposition leaders. Pinochet was also involved in Operation Condor, a co-operative effort on the part of several South American governments to do away with leftist opposition leaders, often by means of murder.

Augusto Pinochet

The Rettig Report found that at least 2,279 persons were conclusively murdered by the Chilean government for political reasons during Pinochet's regime, and the Valech Report found that at least 30,000 persons were tortured by the government for political reasons.




Fanatic Sociopaths with limited intelligence. This category  includes thousands who have gained some power mainly within a nation. Obvious prominent US examples would include George Bush, Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and a host of Teabagging Politicians who out of spite and ignorance, and a total lack of concern for people, do great harm to populations, and are the corrupt paid servants of the 0.1% who posses great wealth. 

Every country seems to breed this mediocre level of  fanatic psychopathic leader who cares little about the human suffering they cause. Their leadership is supported by the 'just plain dumb fanatics'. 

  This is an example of a fanatic sociopath with limited intelligence (Mitch McConnell)  He operates from a blinkered commitment to revenge and spite and is clearly unconcerned about the human suffering he is causing. As a sociopath this might even be a source of pleasure to him.

 Mitch McConnell is the filibuster king, 
master of all that he and his minority minions can obstruct in his zeal to defeat the President. With the filibuster, he zealously bludgeons to death all bills passed by a majority in the House and supported by a majority in the Senate. What was intended to be a precision tool McConnell brandishes as a machine gun, murdering all majority-supported legislation in sight.  

Good Fanatics with high Intelligence
This is a worthy group who demonstrate courageous and wise leadership in human affairs. Franklin  D Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X immediately come to mind, and no doubt you can add to this list. In their zeal they share a conviction that there cause is just and exhibit negligible tolerance for alternatives. In that sense that can be described as having a fanatical commitment. A better term might be to refer to them as passionate humanists but in a sense still fanatics committed and undeviating from their cause despite the knowledge that their actions may sacrifice many lives.

  
 Here are examples of great and highly intelligent fanatics

Conclusion: It takes an almost fanatical zeal and a massive ego that goes with it to rise to a leadership role where there is an opportunity to change the direction of nations. The evil fanatics have no qualms about corrupting the process for personal gain and causing death and destruction but the role more often than not requires that even the good leaders may face responsibility for undertakings that cause great human suffering in pursuit of their cause; for example, Abraham Lincoln's Civil War,  and Winston Churchill's bombing of Germany. In that sense leadership on this scale must accept personality traits that can be best described as Sociopathic.
So as the expression goes "If you can't accept the heat then stay out of the kitchen"

Readers critical comments

1. A fanatic according to my dictionary is “a person whose extreme zeal, piety, etc, goes beyond what is reasonable.”  If you care to be intellectually honest and objective about ‘fanatic’, you cannot cherry pick.  You didn’t include Julian Assange and Edward Snowden in your latest blog.  Because you may agree with a zealot or be pleased with the results of their zealotry, doesn’t make him/her any less of a fanatic.
2. Snowdon is not a fanatic. He is a witness to a crime. Telling on criminals is not fanaticism. Not his life's work. Assange is obsessed and has made it his life's work. 
   
   
   If Snowdon is a fanatic then anyone who reported a crime is a fanatic. To believe in the rule of law does not make one a fanatic. 

Augusto Pinochet