The Well-Bred Weakness Of The Masses
From the Preservation Society’s point of view, a ruling class society is, among other things, a society of nurtured cowards who get “tough” with, or at least shun, those who don’t follow along.
The individual is bred to have a weak ego. We need insecure individuals who suffer to some degree from a lack of self-respect and dignity. Self-deception becomes a way of coping. This is crucial to ruling class success. As a result, the Establishment has far less difficulty colonizing the individual. Insecurity and self-deception become deeply ingrained in the masses. By virtue of proper breeding, self-deception is an individual’s personal way of thinking. It is easier for a weaker, more fearful individual to succumb to Establishment and peer pressure than to carry on as an independent individual.
In a ruling class society being independent-minded is a courageous act — even on a small scale. The anxiety of growing up and then keeping up with the Joneses, appearing respectable and towing the Establishment line are shackles themselves. The ego is beaten down, discouraged, and stuffed into a box.
The chewed up, masticated egos make for easier pickings. They soak up the lies before the individual has the maturity to question, analyze and decide. Labels, attached to their hosts since the earliest days, dictate the individual’s identity and become embedded in the individual’s psyche. For most in society, including the ruling class minion, it becomes an act of extraordinary strength, bravery, or desperation or insanity or simply growing up different, to challenge established convention. And never shall a properly bred individual waver from the well appointed path to commit these crimes of bucking the system.
Even when corruption is blatant, only requiring common sense to understand, the well bred individual will tell themselves anything rather than face the truth of the corruption they have learned to hold dear and identify with through the alchemy of labels. And yet, it is accepted conventional morality that a “decent person” rejects this blatant corruption. They tell themselves things like, “that’s just life (politics, etc.)” to “I deserve it” to “I got my own problems” and “I didn’t know”.
Establishment labels weigh down, yet massage the shriveled ego with lies. Labels command the host. This weak, self-deceiving, easily corralled ego is a very basic paradigm of ruling class society. Even you and I, dear reader, suffer from this malady to some extent. Through the Establishment and learned self-deception
ruling class society tells its individuals
it is better to be “right” than “wrong”,
and it implies it is better to think you
are “right” than accept you are “wrong”.
Being “wrong”, we are taught, is “bad”,
but often encouraged to understand
that it pays to pretend you are “right”
rather than accept that you are “wrong”.
These principles of individual mental conditioning are very important for ruling class policies. A weaker ego will be tempted by them. Pro ruling class thinking is so ingrained, most don’t realize their own self-deception and become offended when it is pointed out. The weaker the ego, the “tougher” it can get outwardly. Greater insecurity often brings more reliance on outward “toughness”, or at least vicarious toughness through enjoying violence, or “tough” behavior. The Establishment under-girds this misshapen ego and encourages its toughness or tough attitude. They get tough with with hated groups instead of those who are the root causes. It then becomes an act of genuine toughness to resist the ruling class agenda.
Resting on the foundation of inner weakness of the individual, ruling class society is itself brutal and callous on its social level. To live in a ruling class society one must have a minimum of toughness. Throughout history one sees that violence and suppression was thought, not just necessary, but a splendid past time as well. Whether hunting wild game for sport or killing for honor, ruling class society needs its killers.
The masses, despite themselves, have made gains that makes “democracy” the most lenient of ruling class societies — many mistaking it for liberty itself. And still, this “free”, “civilized” society encourages copious amounts of unnecessary violence and unbearable conditions (at least for some) as part of life .
The Establishment tells us we need “strength” and “resolve” to get through life, that we must have patience, and that violence is a solution (ie, “punishment” and torture). Then many of these same individuals go to a church or temple of some sort and hypocritically recite mantras like “violence begets violence”. One feels compelled to cleanse and justify their support for violence or other form of brutality. Ruling class society is always a “tough” place to live. The more unequal, the more brutal the society. One need only look at the relative violence in Europe, the US and a Third World nation. The violence progressively worsens.
Kids for the most part learn to admire “toughness”. Its corollary, callousness becomes part of their being. Compassion is equated with weakness, and can only be practiced with ever elusive “security”. It is common place for “decent” kids to grow up fearing poverty and punishment, which they in turn come to believe are prerequisites for the responsible behavior of others. “Life is tough”, they say. A well-bred individual may think they are compassionate, but labels will steer their hosts toward thoughts and actions only labeled compassionate.
The ruling class encourages “toughness” because it replaces reflection and understanding. It is a form of argument. The ruling class realizes what it does not want its masses to know. The conditions of society are not dependent on what’s “right” and “wrong” but on who’s more powerful. Your position may be the correct one but that does not determine the course of action nor social conditions. Who benefits and who gets hurt is a better metric for the point of view of the masses, if they know what good for them.
What if the masses got smart and replaced “what’s right or wrong” (relatively easy to answer) with “who benefits, who gets hurt”? How would that affect the alliances among the masses? As an institution We would rather see an individual stand up for their erroneous “principles” than to concede that their principles are wrong.
One needs “toughness” when truth attacks the ego.