Complacency! We Become Too Comfortable With What Is

 “All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.”
― Noam Chomsky"

“Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.”
― Mae West


“Why do I do anything?' she says. 'I'm educated enough to talk myself out of any plan. To deconstruct any fantasy. Explain away any goal. I'm so smart I can negate any dream.”
― Chuck Palahniuk,

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/micheldemo125531.html#rbx0s0LoKf0Y6ZcE.99

Once conform, once do what others do, and a kind of lethargy steals over all other senses of the soul
- Michel de Montaigne

Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul.

Michel de Montaigne

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/micheldemo125531.html#rbx0s0LoKf0Y6ZcE.99

Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul.

Michel de Montaigne

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/micheldemo125531.html#rbx0s0LoKf0Y6ZcE.99

Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul.

Michel de Montaigne

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/micheldemo125531.html#rbx0s0LoKf0Y6ZcE.99

Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul.

Michel de Montaigne

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/micheldemo125531.html#rbx0s0LoKf0Y6ZcE.99

When you are in a steady job or securely retired you are likely to become too comfortable with what is. You might whine a bit about local problems in your community but you just adjust. It is an easy lethargy. The common comment of friends and neighbours is, "Why waste your time trying to rock the boat because you are powerless to do anything. Just get on with enjoying your life". It reflects a conservative philosophy of the financially secure avoiding unpleasant issues, respecting authority and self preservation by accepting what is.

• It explains why the so many are complacent less likely to vote in local elections. "Rob Ford (mayor of Toronto) is a liar and a incompetent drunk lacking any vision for the city, but he keeps the taxes low, is a political conservative like our Prime Minister and shares many of the conservative beliefs of my family and neighbours. Why change anything?"

• It explains why conservatives dislike demonstrations in the streets, no matter what the cause. "It's because they are noisy and disruptive, hold up rude signs, block traffic, are disrespectful of law and order and our flag, and set a bad example for kids. They always want to change something but I like everything the way it is" 

•  It confirms why conservatives support a grossly overpriced and  unworkable euro that benefits a productive Germany and the wealthy few throughout Europe but assigns many of the citizens of southern European nations to a life of unemployment and poverty. But the few wealthy can say "I can still afford my Mercedes so  we need to manage this unrest by accepting   some German generosity to ease the pain. And don't revalue the currency because it will diminish my wealth!" Live with what is! For ten years we have tinkered with it while Southern Europeans suffer from staggering levels of unemployment and a bleak future. We live with what is to no effect when it is obvious that Germany should break off from the euro and return to the Deutschmark (as George Soros suggests) thus letting the rest of Europe take control of their destiny by settling on their own banking system with one or more competitive currencies that would encourage entrepreneurship and put people back to work.

I live in Narbonne, a city too small to hide its human problems. I meet daily on the street with normal citizens, the passing tourists, the shopkeepers, the unemployed, the beggars, and the physically and mentally impaired.   In large cities in Europe and North America with populations of several million you can live in secure sections of the city and only learn about the city's underbelly from the local newspapers and the TV. Complacency sets in as problems are hidden and we learn to accept as normal the economic conditions whatever they might be. We  live with what is. For example, what the employed public complacently accept as normal in parts of Southern Europe is a 25 to 50% youth unemployment rate whereas in Denmark normal is closer to maybe 5%. It  is just what is, and wherever we live we see what is as normal. 

With this prevailing attitude politicians whether, on the left or right, respond by tweaking the system and changes, if any, are minor, usually ineffectual and painless. We learn to live with what is. 

This attitude in part explains why we put off addressing universally threatening issues such as global climate change, the steadily widening  wealth gap in a once predominately middle class society that was the foundation of democracy, the acceptance of tax avoidance schemes, and the thievery of bankers gambling with the nations wealth.

The wake-up call happens when a disaster occurs that threatens the very survival of the financially secure as well as the destitute. Then a conservative tinkering with what is hits a brick wall. A strong leader is then needed who realizes tweaking will accomplish little and undertakes fundamental changes. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Nelson Mandela are examples of brilliant and powerful leaders who understood this and realized that fundamental changes in direction and not simply tweaking 'what is'  had to happen.

Teddy Roosevelt

Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt as President broke up the large industrial and railroad monopolies , a defeat for JP Morgan and Wall Street. He was a man of many talents with no patience for living with what is; historian, naturist, Nobel Prize  winner, trust buster, adventurer, hunter and military leader (Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders). His face sits on Mt Rushmore along with Lincoln and Washington.

Franklin Roosevelt

 Franklin Delano Roosevelt assuming the Presidency at the height of the depression recognized that fundamental changes in the financial system had to be initiated. Nothing would be accomplished by tinkering with what is. He defied Wall Street and undertook a major change by passing the Banking Act of 1933 with it's Glass-Steagall component that separated commercial and investment banking, designed to wall off customer deposits from the risk-taking inherent in securities underwriting. This was followed by social legislation enacted between 1933 and 1938 known as the New Deal

He had no patience with the the foot dragging of Republicans determined to work within what is.

Charles de Gaulle

Charles de Gaulle recognized tweaking 'what is' following the 2nd World War would not resolve France's governing problems. He cleaned the slate with the 5th Republic thereby liberating the colonies and reforming an unworkable constitution. He also boldly announced that France would become a nuclear power with its own bomb. (interesting to note that Iran has currently made the same announcement but sacrificing the bomb)



Nelson Mandela was a young anti-apartheid revolutionary who (unprepared to live with what is) spent 27 years in jail for his beliefs. Pubic pressure gained his release and  joining negotiations with President F.W. de Klerk abolished apartheid, led the ANC to victory and became South Africa's first black president.

Nelson Mandela

 

To summarize, great leaders invariably recognize in times of crisis that they must take on the risk of battling for fundamental changes. Conservative opposition ( that always exists) by those protecting what is might be tolerated as a force but must not stand in the way of fundamental changes. 

The future,as in the present and past will build on what is, namely societies laws,cultural values and functioning institutions. It is vital however that leaders also recognize that many challenges will be facing the world in the future, both known and unknown, that cannot be handled by tweaking what is and new and fundamental solutions must be found. For example we know that the seas will rise and flood the coastal cities as the polar ice caps melt and massive amounts of methane will be released from the arctic seabeds. Building sea walls and dykes may help to slow the damage from what is but the solution may ultimately lie in reducing our dependency on carbon fuels and the wasteful energy consumption of a rapidly growing consumer society. 

At the time of Christ the world's population stood at about 250 million. In the next 20 years it will probably rise from the current 7.5 billion to about 10 billion, a 40 fold increase of  humans with 2 to 3 times the life span of their ancient ancestors. Our wasteful consumption is clearly negatively impacting on the climate and if current trends continue unabated it raises serious questions about human survival on many parts of this planet. Can the old governing systems with its short time cycle of four to five years to satiate immediate appetites successfully guide us through these challenges? I don't think so. We can tweak and build on what is but that won't be enough. We will need very different and more stable governing structures, new break through sciences and enlightened leadership with a vision of a distant future in order to address these more fundamental and critical long term survival issues. 

Globalization has created a grotesque integration of world banking systems, industrial enterprises and worst of all NATO that binds nations to interconnected commitments and limiting the freedom of individual nations to act. It is a system of sticking with what is and destroying those who don't. 

Can great leaders rise up from this or do we destroy them? Chavez and Castro failed, Dilma Rousseff Brazil's President is defiant and Vladimir Putin is attempting to lead Russia in a different direction, building alliances in the East and attempting to break the dollar monopoly, has stared no wars, does not spread his armies around the world , has intervened to stop America and Saudi Arabia from military interference in Syria and is understandingly opposed to the warlike NATO leaning against his borders.  For this the integrated forces of what is led by America declares Russia as an enemy that stands in the way of hegemonic power. 

Can great leaders to lead real change emerge in this globalized and highly integrated world or will the globalized forces to prevent it prevail? Will we remain accepting what is and avoid the critical decisions that will enable human life to survive on this planet? Wait and see.  

   

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