View Full Version : So what’s y’all’s take on this “great reset” stuff?
What exactly is it supposed to be?
Some of the stuff reads like a chapter out of 1984, like this...
“The world economy is being collapsed, the food supply system is being destroyed, the energy that we rely on to maintain civilization is being curtailed and eliminated and we’ll be forced into the Great Reset where we will own nothing.”
Former BlackRock stockpicker, Ed Dowd believes that the entire COVID sham was created as a cover for the financial collapse and that new lockdowns are coming, to try mitigate the inevitable violence and chaos that we can expect to be witnessing in the streets.
We also saw how Dr Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer VP also believes that COVID and the death shot are an elaborate hoax to engineer a collapse of sovereign currencies to bring in the Great Reset and the introduction of programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), for a wholly-controlled population, in which people will not be able to buy food, etc. unless the algorithms permit and the undesirables can basically be starved to death via artificial intelligence.
Some of the other stuff kinda makes a tiny bit of sense but it’s still hard to grasp...
US spending and debt have spiraled out of control and the Government can only raise the money it needs by printing more of it, which means that hyperinflation is guaranteed.
He says this has been going on for decades and there’s no way to fix it and that the US got away with this for so long, because US dollar is the world’s reserve currency.
When the US Government prints trillions, it is thereby robbing Americans and the entire world in what he calls the biggest theft in history.
He says the total US debt is at $90 trillion, which together with $169 trillion in US unfunded liabilities totals $259 trillion, which is $778,000 per US citizen or $2,067,000 per US Taxpayer.
Now, the value of all US assets combined: every piece of land, real estate, all savings, all companies, everything that all citizens, businesses, entities and the state own is worth $193 trillion.
Our total debt, $259 trillion minus our total net worth, $193 trillion equals negative $66 trillion of debt and liabilities after every asset in the US has been sold off.
So even if the US could sell all assets at the current value, which is impossible, it would still be broke.
So I get this part, US politicians have wrecked the economy and spent us into bankruptcy and the only way out of the financial Armageddon that’s coming is to intentionally collapse it all.
But that’s gonna cause chaos on a level no one can control. Supposedly the elites are doing it intentionally... how do they plan to survive plunging a global population of 8 billion into violent chaos?
Those high end security details and bunkers are only gonna work for a short time. Maybe that’s why all the billionaires are trying to get off this planet? :eek:
It all seems very very conspiratorial. Or am I just getting all the wrong information here?
I heard some stat months ago that said a percentage, well over half, of the population is employed by the government. When the parasite is bigger than the host, the host will eventually die.
(We can always just raise the debt limit and keep sending money to shithole enemies though!)
Diamondback
06-10-22, 17:45
But that’s gonna cause chaos on a level no one can control. Supposedly the elites are doing it intentionally... how do they plan to survive plunging a global population of 8 billion into violent chaos?
Those high end security details and bunkers are only gonna work for a short time. Maybe that’s why all the billionaires are trying to get off this planet? :eek:
It all seems very very conspiratorial. Or am I just getting all the wrong information here?
Bunker themselves and nuke us changes the math a lot... a lot less Deplorables to deal with makes for a more controllable populace, and IIRC they want world population capped at a number that means somewhere between 3 out of every 4 to 9 out of every 10 have to be culled "for the greater good."
I heard some stat months ago that said a percentage, well over half, of the population is employed by the government. When the parasite is bigger than the host, the host will eventually die.
(We can always just raise the debt limit and keep sending money to shithole enemies though!)
About 157.5 million employed in the US; about 23 million government employees (all jurisdictions).
This is a conspiracy to the order that I have a very difficult time believing, this is real global world order stuff.
Avengers Infinity War....
Next pandemic will be called Thanos.
In seriousness it's pretty funny how a bunch of hollywood leftists made a film that is quite conservative in nature and focusses on the value of one life. Pro life and contradicts the current population bomb scare.
There will be no "great" anything but a gradual destruction of everything we ever built and achieved.
There will be no "evil secret society" to fight, just horrible people making horrible decisions (no matter who is elected) and the horrible consequences of those decisions. It will be like trying to fight urban decay, rust always wins.
I’m glad it seems like more people are waking up to the BS. Listen to Ron Paul, George Gammon (Rebel Capitalist) and other free market folks. We ain’t seen nothing yet.
The water out west coming in from Lake mead is dropping like crazy. 50% of that water is sent to California. But the water is disappearing at a faster rate than ever before. California's farmland is drying up fast and water is being rationed. Soon there will be now water to irrigate the farms.
Yet Bill Gates is buying up farmland all over the bread basket in the Midwest. Food wars are coming.
World economic forum. For a “conspiracy theory” they sure don’t try to hide it.
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
Read all that in a Bond villain accent, then go watch a video of the WEF founder.
Diamondback
06-10-22, 19:40
World economic forum. For a “conspiracy theory” they sure don’t try to hide it.
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
Read all that in a Bond villain accent, then go watch a video of the WEF founder.
Dude, I been sayin' for a couple years that Klaus Schwab is locked in a helluva fight with Soros for the title of "Real World Blofeld"...
El Vaquero
06-10-22, 19:50
There will be no "great" anything but a gradual destruction of everything we ever built and achieved.
There will be no "evil secret society" to fight, just horrible people making horrible decisions (no matter who is elected) and the horrible consequences of those decisions. It will be like trying to fight urban decay, rust always wins.
Agreed. What continues to amaze me is how quickly this seems to be happening.
Now if you were given the task of wiping out large chunks of the world's population and garnering more power to a smaller group you might think of unleashing some sort of virus. If you were really diabolical, you would have people in place to make sure the organizations that exist for the sole purpose of containing said virus would act very, very slowly, make bad choice after misstep after bad decision. You might then get your fellow cronies in on designing a vaccine that would test the control that you have over the population while really not doing a whole lot to stop the virus. If you're not so lucky the virus would, as viruses do, get weaker over successive strains and you might resort back to your cronies making the vaccine to see if it could take out a few extra people you missed with the worst strain of the virus. Seeing the panic you've been able to inflict on the population begin to wane, you might hit fast forward on the economic disasters you've already set in motion by regulating away energy independence and regulating in awful inflation. You could even put measures in place to destroy supply systems and chains that have worked just fine for a hundred years and have "accidents" happen all over the most powerful country to erode its ability to feed its population...
So, if the goal wasn't to wipe out people and cripple the world's economies, what in God's green Earth could possibly have been the intention of all this? These people in power the world over can't all be so incredibly stupid as to expect all of the dumb shit they're doing to actually help the planet's citizenry which leaves the only other alternative is that they're doing it on purpose. And I haven't been around the world lately, but in this country, half of the populace is just fine with pitching in to help these megalomaniacs destroy everything that matters.
But I'm sure we'll be fine...
The water out west coming in from Lake mead is dropping like crazy. 50% of that water is sent to California. But the water is disappearing at a faster rate than ever before. California's farmland is drying up fast and water is being rationed. Soon there will be now water to irrigate the farms.
Yet Bill Gates is buying up farmland all over the bread basket in the Midwest. Food wars are coming.
Turn the tap OFF and let the environmentalists live in harmony with their natural desert environment. They can start desalinating sea water, lots of sea water handy. Let the environmentalists HAVE what they advocate for everyone else.
Agreed. What continues to amaze me is how quickly this seems to be happening.
How fast did LA change from Dragnet LA to shithole central? A single generation? How fast did Detroit go from a "jobs for everyone / anyone" city to the punchline of every joke about the worst place in the world? A single generation? How fast did Pittsburg go from Steel City to almost a major ghost town? A single generation?
World economic forum. For a “conspiracy theory” they sure don’t try to hide it.
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
Read all that in a Bond villain accent, then go watch a video of the WEF founder.
Seriously. This is far less of a "conspiracy theory" and more of a conspiracy fact. They're open on what they want to do, and how they want to do it. The only question is just how far their tendrils have spread and how many players are actively working to that goal.
Part of the great reset is these unelected wef members pulling the strings by donating massive amounts of money they get through their non profit foundations. Look at what george soros has spent to get people elected and look at the influence bill gates had on the scamdemic and his love of vaccines.
Eventually meat and gas will be so expensive we will be using the bus. They will bleed our resources and increase debt. Enter fedcoin crypto currency for complete financial control and evaluation of our purchases and will affect our social credit score. Drive a car instead of a bus? Lowers your credit score/carbon credits which will affect your overall life and how easy things are for you.
You will eat the bugs for protein, no more milk, meat, eggs.. these are bad for the planet, global warming our biggest enemy.
WEF Agenda 2030, they are not hiding it
The_War_Wagon
06-11-22, 08:52
You'll own nothing & owe nothing & be happy about it!
I don’t buy the lower the population part. Covid was an awesome opportunity to kill of the sick and old. No producers.
Everyone else is a source of income. They want you working to produce tax income. If you’re to useless to produce income they want you dependent and voting for them to take care of you. Then they tax the producers more to pay to take care of the poor. This money I turn is used to pay the elites for their housing and food for these poor paid for by tax payers. This is why they want illegals in the country and then to make the. Legal tax payers. And voters.
They want average people to not be able to own a house. They want all your money as rent. They don’t want you to get to keep any as equity in your home.
I believe the social credits will be to determine what you get from the state. Not what you can or can’t buy with your own money.
Lastly if they kill everyone off who is going to cater to all their needs? It takes a lot of people to keep the world turning. Are they going to kill off all the people who produce Luxury goods? Cars, airplanes, boats? Makes their golf balls?
No they just want as much of your money as possible with you having the least bit of power possible. They will do everything they can to maintain the illusion of freedom.
You are the carbon they want to reduce. Sustainability is reducing the population not making more energy, more efficiently.
Malthusians have been around for over two hundred years, not sure how you could miss them.
There is nothing new under the sun. I was reading about Catherine the Great of Russia a couple of weeks ago. She is just one example of a "leader" from just a few hundred years ago. She makes these guys look like a bunch of pikers when it comes to general disregard for the unwashed masses. She did do a couple of good things for the serfs, but it wasn't because she was some compassionate pleader for the less fortunate. People get power and then they go mad, happens all the time in this wonderful world of ours. There is nothing new under the sun.
There is nothing new under the sun. I was reading about Catherine the Great of Russia a couple of weeks ago. She is just one example of a "leader" from just a few hundred years ago. She makes these guys look like a bunch of pikers when it comes generally disregard for the unwashed masses. She did do a couple of good things for the serfs, but it wasn't because she was some compassionate pleader for the less fortunate. People get power and then they go mad, happens all the time in this wonderful world of ours. There is nothing new under the sun.
Does political power make people bad or are bad people attracted to political power?
I've always said people who want to be a senator, state rep or president are by default the wrong candidate.
If I ran things, not only would there be term limits but congressmen would be appointed by a random lottery system, kinda like jury duty. You walk out to the mailbox and discover you have to serve 2 years. Presidents would be decided by who among the qualified candidates was the 87th caller to the local classic rock station.
Supreme Court justices would be highest scores on a Jeopardy game show format where the categories are always The Constitution and The Federalist Papers.
Does political power make people bad or are bad people attracted to political power?
I've always said people who want to be a senator, state rep or president are by default the wrong candidate.
If I ran things, not only would there be term limits but congressmen would be appointed by a random lottery system, kinda like jury duty. You walk out to the mailbox and discover you have to serve 2 years. Presidents would be decided by who among the qualified candidates was the 87th caller to the local classic rock station.
Supreme Court justices would be highest scores on a Jeopardy game show format where the categories are always The Constitution and The Federalist Papers.
I think we all have a little bit of tyrant lurking in the deep part of us. Some have a lot of it and can't contain it very well. We've probably all had unhinged bosses at one time or another. We've all exhibited unjustified anger at different times in our lives. Since I have a view that says that people are fallen in nature, the seed of bad is already there. For many in history, add some power to their lives and it's like pouring gasoline on a fire. I was reading that Henry the 8th had about 70,000 people of various ranks executed during his 38 year reign. To me guys like Klaus Schwabe are a bit dangerous, but laughable lightweights compared to guys like Henry or Charles I and Charles II.
I think we all have a little bit of tyrant lurking in the deep part of us. Some have a lot of it and can't contain it very well. We've probably all had unhinged bosses at one time or another. We've all exhibited unjustified anger at different times in our lives. Since I have a view that says that people are fallen in nature, the seed of bad is already there. For many in history, add some power to their lives and it's like pouring gasoline on a fire. I was reading that Henry the 8th had about 70,000 people of various ranks executed during his 38 year reign. To me guys like Klaus Schwabe are a bit dangerous, but laughable lightweights compared to guys like Henry or Charles I and Charles II.
Don’t think the globalists wouldn’t have 70 million of us executed if they could get away with it.
Don’t think the globalists wouldn’t have 70 million of us executed if they could get away with it.
Wishing it and getting it done are different though. They may have that level of malice, I don't know. But since WW2 it seems to me that megalomaniacs, like all the people at WEF, have trouble really getting things permanently implemented. Not that they aren't really trying hard.
Here's a short vid about the difference in the views of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. I found it to be a fascinating little analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37N0aFmO19o
Diamondback
06-12-22, 15:24
Does political power make people bad or are bad people attracted to political power?
I've always said people who want to be a senator, state rep or president are by default the wrong candidate.
If I ran things, not only would there be term limits but congressmen would be appointed by a random lottery system, kinda like jury duty. You walk out to the mailbox and discover you have to serve 2 years. Presidents would be decided by who among the qualified candidates was the 87th caller to the local classic rock station.
Supreme Court justices would be highest scores on a Jeopardy game show format where the categories are always The Constitution and The Federalist Papers.
"Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter..." :) Though I'd also add an eligibility requirement for all NCA or Line of Succession offices (in addition to making all LoS require POTUS eligibility, BYE Mayorkas and Granholm!) that they pass and maintain eligibility on both TS security clearance AND Personnel Reliability Program (nuclear-weapons stuff). Fail either at any time before end of term and it's Buh-Bye on the spot, next player please step forward to fill remainder of term.
The PRP Psych Eval alone should DQ most of the Democrats... *evil snicker*
Diamondback
06-12-22, 15:25
Don’t think the globalists wouldn’t have 70 million of us executed if they could get away with it.
Really? I think 70 mil would just be the warmup...
I think we all have a little bit of tyrant lurking in the deep part of us. Some have a lot of it and can't contain it very well. We've probably all had unhinged bosses at one time or another. We've all exhibited unjustified anger at different times in our lives. Since I have a view that says that people are fallen in nature, the seed of bad is already there. For many in history, add some power to their lives and it's like pouring gasoline on a fire. I was reading that Henry the 8th had about 70,000 people of various ranks executed during his 38 year reign. To me guys like Klaus Schwabe are a bit dangerous, but laughable lightweights compared to guys like Henry or Charles I and Charles II.
So I have a similar observation but different reason. For the last 500,000 years or so until very recently, we've been struggling to exist in a world full of lions and tigers and bears and other bad stuff nature brings to the table. Survival rewards the vicious and powerful and eventually we arrived at apex predator status. I don't think you can just turn that off and start growing crops and building buildings.
I think "sadly" that nature rewards those who can do terrible things without feeling bad about it. Serial killers, pedos, cannibals were all people who were capable of horror and put fear in the hears of others a mere 10,000 years ago. I don't want to excuse any of that behavior, but the world did frequently reward it.
The struggle to master the environment has simply switched largely to politics with the creation of civilization. Now I don't buy into any "original sin" but I think most people, if you do "bad enough" things to them you will discover a capacity for violence, but I don't think that is always evil. Motivation is an important criteria.
Does political power make people bad or are bad people attracted to political power?
I've always said people who want to be a senator, state rep or president are by default the wrong candidate.
This.
Have a look at personality psychology and compare it with your memories of people. You begin to spot similar personality configurations that are low in empathy but very ambitious. Then you start to notice the smarter and better organized they are by nature, the higher they go. If they're really unintelligent and low in conscientiousness, they often turn out to be muggers, thieves and rapists. If they're a little smarter, they turn out as gang leaders (or at least try and get there- short competitive life). If they're smarter than that and more conscientious, they end up as lawyers, business owners, police officers, military senior NCOs, military officers, etc. They're always noted for their ambition and to the observant eye, their penchant for Machiavellian career maneuvering. If they're very smart or very lucky (born to high status counts as luck), they end up in politics or high up in corporate structures.
That's not to say that only those low in empathy who end up as things like business owners and police officers, the point is to notice that the wrong kinds of people get where they do because they are ambitious, seek positions of authority, and are low in empathy. They can almost always out compete and out endure less aggressive, ambitious personality configurations because they want it more, work harder for it, and suffer less mental/emotional pain for failure.
That's why positions of authority almost always attract the last kind of people most people would want in those positions.
teufelhund1918
06-13-22, 06:33
Part of the great reset is these unelected wef members pulling the strings by donating massive amounts of money they get through their non profit foundations. Look at what george soros has spent to get people elected and look at the influence bill gates had on the scamdemic and his love of vaccines.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
There is so much to this great reset and alot of players in it.
Here's Kerry after the stolen election concerning the Great Reset and the USA. :
"When asked by panel host Borge Brende whether the World Economic Forum and other Great Reset supporters are “expecting too much too soon from the new president, or is he going to deliver first day on this [sic] topics?,” Kerry responded, “The answer to your question is, no, you’re not expecting too much.”
“And yes, it [the Great Reset] will happen,” Kerry continued. “And I think it will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine. In effect, the citizens of the United States have just done a Great Reset. We’ve done a Great Reset. And it was a record level of voting.” "
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/john-kerry-davos-and-the-great-reset/
Look at major corporations pushing the "woke" ideology. Just look at EGS scores. Get on board or we'll run you out of business.
Bill Gates is now the largest owner of farmland in the US and he is pushing to shut down meat production to move to eating bugs and crap. He is also pushing for these bio tech implants to contain your info in your person.
You will not own personal property. Black Rock, the largest financial holding firm in the world I believe, is buying up about every repro'd property they can get their hands on.
Cashless society. The fed is looking at it now. Try to withdrawal large amounts of cash from your account today. You can't do it. They also report all transactions above $600 to the IRS now so you can be taxed on it.
"Them" can track you to within 18 inches of where your phone is... just watch 2000 Mules. That is how they tracked these ballot harvesters. Along with the stuff they can do to your vehicle through OnStar, etc...
It is crazy, but it is about complete control of the individual.
Adrenaline_6
06-13-22, 09:59
This.
Have a look at personality psychology and compare it with your memories of people. You begin to spot similar personality configurations that are low in empathy but very ambitious. Then you start to notice the smarter and better organized they are by nature, the higher they go. If they're really unintelligent and low in conscientiousness, they often turn out to be muggers, thieves and rapists. If they're a little smarter, they turn out as gang leaders (or at least try and get there- short competitive life). If they're smarter than that and more conscientious, they end up as lawyers, business owners, police officers, military senior NCOs, military officers, etc. They're always noted for their ambition and to the observant eye, their penchant for Machiavellian career maneuvering. If they're very smart or very lucky (born to high status counts as luck), they end up in politics or high up in corporate structures.
That's not to say that only those low in empathy who end up as things like business owners and police officers, the point is to notice that the wrong kinds of people get where they do because they are ambitious, seek positions of authority, and are low in empathy. They can almost always out compete and out endure less aggressive, ambitious personality configurations because they want it more, work harder for it, and suffer less mental/emotional pain for failure.
That's why positions of authority almost always attract the last kind of people most people would want in those positions.
So I have a similar observation but different reason. For the last 500,000 years or so until very recently, we've been struggling to exist in a world full of lions and tigers and bears and other bad stuff nature brings to the table. Survival rewards the vicious and powerful and eventually we arrived at apex predator status. I don't think you can just turn that off and start growing crops and building buildings.
I think "sadly" that nature rewards those who can do terrible things without feeling bad about it. Serial killers, pedos, cannibals were all people who were capable of horror and put fear in the hears of others a mere 10,000 years ago. I don't want to excuse any of that behavior, but the world did frequently reward it.
The struggle to master the environment has simply switched largely to politics with the creation of civilization. Now I don't buy into any "original sin" but I think most people, if you do "bad enough" things to them you will discover a capacity for violence, but I don't think that is always evil. Motivation is an important criteria.
On the flip side though, there are people who are ambitious who want to do good and change things for the good. The problem ends up with does the end justify the means. A lot of times, the power to get things done corrupts even the once morally good because they get caught up in what they want to accomplish in the end and get tunnel vision...on top of the sinful pride they have in wanting to accomplish said mission. Not accomplishing the wanted mission is a bruise to ones ego and failure in doing so limits their continued ability to stay in power to accomplish these goals. So the monster is grown from that and quickly feeds itself.
So I have a similar observation but different reason. For the last 500,000 years or so until very recently, we've been struggling to exist in a world full of lions and tigers and bears and other bad stuff nature brings to the table. Survival rewards the vicious and powerful and eventually we arrived at apex predator status. I don't think you can just turn that off and start growing crops and building buildings.
I think "sadly" that nature rewards those who can do terrible things without feeling bad about it. Serial killers, pedos, cannibals were all people who were capable of horror and put fear in the hears of others a mere 10,000 years ago. I don't want to excuse any of that behavior, but the world did frequently reward it.
The struggle to master the environment has simply switched largely to politics with the creation of civilization. Now I don't buy into any "original sin" but I think most people, if you do "bad enough" things to them you will discover a capacity for violence, but I don't think that is always evil. Motivation is an important criteria.This is an excellent summary of what's in the book "Sapiens".
All I have to say...love him, hate him....it matters not, because Alex Jones was right about all of it.
On the flip side though, there are people who are ambitious who want to do good and change things for the good. The problem ends up with does the end justify the means. A lot of times, the power to get things done corrupts even the once morally good because they get caught up in what they want to accomplish in the end and get tunnel vision...on top of the sinful pride they have in wanting to accomplish said mission. Not accomplishing the wanted mission is a bruise to ones ego and failure in doing so limits their continued ability to stay in power to accomplish these goals. So the monster is grown from that and quickly feeds itself.
Well, that's not quite true, no. That's the way a more agreeable personality often projects onto and imagines the powerful to be: well intentioned, but flawed by human weakness.
As it turns out, humans are neither infinitely variable the way we in the West grow up being taught, nor does everyone feel the same drives, pains, and desires like we first imagine when we are children. In fact, individuals are predictable in broad strokes and fit into very distinct boxes of IQ brackets and typical personality configurations that explain their potential and proclivity.
When we discuss "ambition," we could be discussing a strong desire to change something. That's what it sounds like you mean. When I wrote about ambition, I meant a desire to improve one's position and status in order to wield more authority.
The ambition you wrote about is necessarily short lived. The kind of person you are describing is someone who is high enough in neuroticism and agreeableness to be bothered by something in their environment that hurts someone other than themselves. The ambition I wrote about does not and cannot cooexist in a person like that, as the person I describe is low in neuroticism and low in agreeableness; self centered and unfeeling about the concerns of others.
The issue is that people low in agreeableness and neuroticism are significantly less burdened by cares for others' welfare and also their own pain. They have less of their processing time taken up caring for others or suffering from disappointments and setbacks, so are more apt to callously hurt others and take risks until they succeed.
The kind of person who will repeatedly win contests is the kind of person who doesn't care much about anything that doesn't matter to them personally. The kind of person who cares about others has an attribute directly opposed to long-term success in a competitive environment with that the former type of person.
All human (and you could say all primate) associations eventually form into pyramidal hierarchies, based on competence, and the ruthless who have enough civility to maintain alliances dominate that sort of competition. The near narcissist, near sociopath, who is the most intelligent and sociable enough to make and maintain alliances, is the most suited in the long term to win any social popularity contest and rise in a hierarchy. As soon as the upper echelons are populated with near narcissist, near sociopaths, which they inevitably will be, it is impossible for more caring personalities to compete there.
Once these aggressive types achieve dominance, they live a harried life defending against challengers and seek most strongly protection and perpetuation of the status quo.
Eventually, events transpire that irritate the other personality types enough to want to be free of the tyranny of control and they either go elsewhere to start a new hierarchy (that will eventually end up just like the old one after some generations), or else they topple the current hierarchy effectively enough via revolution to reset the cycle, most of the time just with another tyrant (Russia to Soviet Union, Roman Republic to Roman Empire, French Monarchy to French Empire, etc), or very rarely with a hierarchy run for a few generations by those less ambitious (like the USA).
Adrenaline_6
06-16-22, 12:44
Well, that's not quite true, no. That's the way a more agreeable personality often projects onto and imagines the powerful to be: well intentioned, but flawed by human weakness.
As it turns out, humans are neither infinitely variable the way we in the West grow up being taught, nor does everyone feel the same drives, pains, and desires like we first imagine when we are children. In fact, individuals are predictable in broad strokes and fit into very distinct boxes of IQ brackets and typical personality configurations that explain their potential and proclivity.
When we discuss "ambition," we could be discussing a strong desire to change something. That's what it sounds like you mean. When I wrote about ambition, I meant a desire to improve one's position and status in order to wield more authority.
The ambition you wrote about is necessarily short lived. The kind of person you are describing is someone who is high enough in neuroticism and agreeableness to be bothered by something in their environment that hurts someone other than themselves. The ambition I wrote about does not and cannot cooexist in a person like that, as the person I describe is low in neuroticism and low in agreeableness; self centered and unfeeling about the concerns of others.
The issue is that people low in agreeableness and neuroticism are significantly less burdened by cares for others' welfare and also their own pain. They have less of their processing time taken up caring for others or suffering from disappointments and setbacks, so are more apt to callously hurt others and take risks until they succeed.
The kind of person who will repeatedly win contests is the kind of person who doesn't care much about anything that doesn't matter to them personally. The kind of person who cares about others has an attribute directly opposed to long-term success in a competitive environment with that the former type of person.
All human (and you could say all primate) associations eventually form into pyramidal hierarchies, based on competence, and the ruthless who have enough civility to maintain alliances dominate that sort of competition. The near narcissist, near sociopath, who is the most intelligent and sociable enough to make and maintain alliances, is the most suited in the long term to win any social popularity contest and rise in a hierarchy. As soon as the upper echelons are populated with near narcissist, near sociopaths, which they inevitably will be, it is impossible for more caring personalities to compete there.
Once these aggressive types achieve dominance, they live a harried life defending against challengers and seek most strongly protection and perpetuation of the status quo.
Eventually, events transpire that irritate the other personality types enough to want to be free of the tyranny of control and they either go elsewhere to start a new hierarchy (that will eventually end up just like the old one after some generations), or else they topple the current hierarchy effectively enough via revolution to reset the cycle, most of the time just with another tyrant (Russia to Soviet Union, Roman Republic to Roman Empire, French Monarchy to French Empire, etc), or very rarely with a hierarchy run for a few generations by those less ambitious (like the USA).
I was not imagining the powerful to be anything but who they are. I just think they run the gamut. Although what you describe might have more of a percentage, I don't think you can pigeon hole them all into one box. That usually never works for anything and is wrong pretty much every single time. What I do agree on is that they all eventually get corrupted by the very objective that they seek to attain whether it be honorable or not.
Diamondback
06-16-22, 12:49
When we discuss "ambition," we could be discussing a strong desire to change something. That's what it sounds like you mean. When I wrote about ambition, I meant a desire to improve one's position and status in order to wield more authority.
The ambition you wrote about is necessarily short lived. The kind of person you are describing is someone who is high enough in neuroticism and agreeableness to be bothered by something in their environment that hurts someone other than themselves. The ambition I wrote about does not and cannot cooexist in a person like that, as the person I describe is low in neuroticism and low in agreeableness; self centered and unfeeling about the concerns of others.
Perhaps a better term for "specific goal" might be "task oriented" or "purpose driven," they see one goal through to the end then find a new goal and repeat with it.
What intrigues me is everybody thinks bad things will only happen to them !
I think we all have a little bit of tyrant lurking in the deep part of us. Some have a lot of it and can't contain it very well. We've probably all had unhinged bosses at one time or another. We've all exhibited unjustified anger at different times in our lives. Since I have a view that says that people are fallen in nature, the seed of bad is already there. For many in history, add some power to their lives and it's like pouring gasoline on a fire. I was reading that Henry the 8th had about 70,000 people of various ranks executed during his 38 year reign. To me guys like Klaus Schwabe are a bit dangerous, but laughable lightweights compared to guys like Henry or Charles I and Charles II.
True leaders actively build up the base and exile those who dont belong. Violence is only for attacks to protect the group, or lightly to make a point when needed.
Tyrants are "Im always right, its my way" type people. We dont all have "they disagree, kill them" in our blood.
True leaders actively build up the base and exile those who dont belong. Violence is only for attacks to protect the group, or lightly to make a point when needed.
Tyrants are "Im always right, its my way" type people. We dont all have "they disagree, kill them" in our blood.
If you read my post bit more carefully I didn't equate the average person with Henry and other megalomaniacs. Our "little bit of tyrant" comes out in more modest ways, like mistreating people, our wives, our children or our neighbors, unless of course you have managed to escape the baser thoughts, words and deeds of guys like me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.