Skip to main content

See also:

Sweet Tyranny: The beneficent political and religious dictatorship

The perfect cube over graph paper
The perfect cube over graph paper
Steven Switzer

In looking at the events of the past year, and seeing the developments in the Middle East, it gives rise to an important question. Why do people when given a choice between two or more alternatives always choose the worst possible thing? In a confirmation of Rudin's Law, a corollary of Murphy's Law, and Murphy's first corollary, just recently in Kuwait and in Egypt and also elsewhere in the Middle East, they had a democracy, and they threw it away. They chose radical religious regimes and have guaranteed for themselves that things will go from bad to worse. The people honestly believed that religion will solve their problems, but, of course, their problems are just beginning. Religion never solves problems. In fact, it decreases the probability that the problem will be solved, because instead of taking action to solve the problem, the people will simply wait for God to solve the problem for them.

The Salafists have already threatened to destroy the livelihood of Egypt's tourism by covering up or destroying the pyramids and all of Egypt's culture and history and introducing an austere and pietistic religious rule that will restrict all forms of popular amusements. No more music, no more alcohol, no more bikinis on the beaches. Women will have to be covered up from head to toe. Why did people choose the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood? In Kuwait, Libya, and Tunisia the same things have happened. Why did the people choose these things?

The answer is simple. People are sheep. They absolutely demand to be tyrannized. The average person cannot think for himself or herself, he or she wants to be told what to do. And this is what Egypt and Kuwait prove. Anton Szandor LaVey understood and observed this principle as many others before him. He wrote in is final book, Satan Speaks!, in the chapter called, The Jewish Question,

"The first time I read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, my instinctive reaction was, 'So, what's wrong with THAT? Isn't that the way any master plan should work? Doesn't the public deserve -- nay, demand -- such despotism?' What we see around us now proves it beyond a doubt, just as Orwell, McLuhan, and Mander projected, and Spencer long before them. Both Perry London in Behavior Control and Roger Price in The Great Roob Revolution drew up the blueprints. What is 'tyranny'? Despotism? Is it all so bad, if so attractively packaged that it's demanded? Does the mental capacity and general wellbeing of the public not thrive under it? I see no great mass of freethinkers around ME. Where are they hiding? Certainly not on a drill field of trendiness.”

LaVey was right. And it is the wave of the future.

Are we in the West any different? Absolutely not! In fact, the West may be even more vulnerable to tyranny. Critical thinking is not taught in public schools except at the university and college level when it is too late. Children are simply spoon fed information in their formative years and are simply expected to pass exams spitting out what they are taught. Religious agendas are making their way back into public schools. Fundamentalist Christians are demanding more religious activities and teaching. They want Creationism and Intelligent Design to be taught in public schools, and Islamic fundamentalists meanwhile are going to public schools and presenting a sanitized version of Islam for youngsters, where kids can get to pretend to be Muslims, and they can go to a mosque and practice bowing to Allah, and they are reading books which downplay Western civilization and present Islam and Islamic culture as wonderful and good never mentioning any of the negatives about it, and all in the name of cultural acceptance and tolerance. Teaching about other cultures and religions is fine, but thinly disguised religious propaganda being introduced to young minds is another thing. But no matter who is doing the indoctrination, no critical thinking is allowed. Religions don’t allow critical thinking anyway, after all, asking uncomfortable questions about God, and religious tenets is blasphemous. Is Jesus really the Son of God? How can he be both God incarnate, and also God’s Son? How can there be three equally divine persons in the Godhead if there is only one God? How do we know that Muhammad was not just simply a lunatic in the desert? If Muhammad were truly the prophet of God, why didn’t God provide more signs and miracles to prove that Muhammad was indeed his messenger? If God is so great, why is most of the Islamic world in perpetual war, poverty and hardship?

Since nobody is being taught to think for themselves from a young age, adults are remarkably easy to lead, because they have no faculties to question the claims being made to them by figures in authority. The West is no different. Superstition, anti science, and uncritical acceptance of the claims of authority prevail in both East and West. And yet, they laugh at each other.

Westerners may laugh at the silly Hadiths of Islam, such as that the Devil spends the night in people’s noses ( Sahih Muslim 2:462) or that he urinates in people‘s ears so that they cannot hear the call to prayer in the early morning (Sahih Bukhari 2:21:245 ). Or that the Devil snatches hairs from the behinds of Muslims when they pray or that he breaks wind during prayers and the sermon to distract believers ( Sahih Bukhari 1:11:582). Or that while Moses was bathing that some rocks stole his clothes and that he caught up with the rocks and then beat them so badly that the rocks still bear the marks of the beating to this day (Sahih Muslim 30:5850, Sahih Bukhari 4:55:616 ). Yet these same Westerners will not laugh at such silly notions that anointing someone’s head with oil and praying over them will heal the sick (James 5:14-16). Or that the ashes of a red heifer (with other ingredients) must be used to purify someone that has come into contact with a dead body (Num. 19:1-10). Or that an unfaithful woman can be tested by using bitter water, and if she is guilty her belly will bloat out and she will be made sterile (Num 5:11-31). And these silly notions are found in the Bible.

Think of it, tyranny is the default state of human existence. Humanity has existed under some form of it for most of its existence. So why should we stop now? The simple fact is, if human beings were to have true freedom, they would destroy it. Human beings have neither the intellectual capacity, nor the will to sustain true freedom. And human beings are not responsible enough to have true freedom.

But the time has come for a new kind of tyranny. The old forms are simply unacceptable. The new form of tyranny is called a "soft dictatorship." The form of government might be called a "directorship" rather than a dictatorship.

Now what is the difference between a "hard dictatorship" and a "soft dictatorship?" Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Communist Soviet Union, Islamic Republics are all examples of hard dictatorships. The country is ruled by a single supreme authority. They impose all the rules that people are to follow by direct rulings. They maintain order and control through brute force, fear and intimidation. But a soft dictatorship works differently. It is a dictatorship in that the society is ruled by an elite force or group, but unlike in a hard dictatorship, the elites rule silently, and they are invisible. Rules are imposed by indirect control. The government does not use force, except in extreme circumstances, but uses the tools of encouragement, herd mentality, psychology, and social engineering to impose its will on the people. Most people do not want to be isolated from the social group, so people will comply to group directives. "Everyone is doing it!" is the basis of such control. Knowing human psychology and the basics of what motivates people is essential for this type of government. The ruling elites have to know how to motivate people to do what they want them to do. But it isn't terribly hard. Advertisers do it all the time. People want to avoid pain, hardship, loss, isolation, and people want convenience, gratification, instant fulfillment, safety and security.

The key is to give people the illusion of choice and freedom. They have a certain degree of actual freedom, but under certain prescribed limits and always under the control of the ruling elite. A government can play democracy, having a slate of leaders or representatives, which people would "elect", but it is all a sham. The representatives and leaders are all puppets of the elite, and the real power is kept away from the mindless public. After all, if the public had real power, they would not know how to use it. They would be reckless and irresponsible. Mob rule is always dangerous.

American democracy is in many ways like a soft dictatorship. Did the Founding Fathers of the United States actually construct a soft dictatorship without knowing it? They constructed a system that is remarkably robust and difficult to change, yet allows for change, and gives the people some semblance of control, but there is always a power in control People do have some individual freedom, but there are specific limits. It may not be quite a soft dictatorship, but has many elements of it. The Founding Fathers knew full well that mob rule is very dangerous. Tom Paine spoke of government being "a necessary evil." In America, people do have some semblance of choice, albeit limited, and often conforming to the wishes of the de facto social elites (i.e. the wealthy, businesses, etc. of the country.) But in a true soft dictatorship, the people have no real power or choice at all, only an appearance of it. The ruling elites control everything, but give the people an appearance of personal freedom and choice. Though America is not quite a soft dictatorship, there is a good chance that America and the rest of the world will evolve into this by necessity.

It is a fact. People must be led, and they must be told what to do. And it is possible to make people do anything. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union clearly demonstrate that it is possible to get people to do things that they might even consider morally repugnant if they are properly motivated and not even by brute force and intimidation. Nazi soldiers willingly did the bidding of the Fuehrer in herding Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals and other people deemed misfits to the gas chambers. Of course, if people actually like doing what they are ordered to do, then it would be rather easy to lead them, wouldn't it?

If a government were to mandate that on Tuesdays and Thursdays, women must wear miniskirts and dresses and show their legs in public and even allow men to grope them, what would it take for people to comply? If a society were to mandate that everyone go totally nude in public for one week during the summertime, what would it take for people to comply? What would it take to make people go on a drunken orgy in the last Monday of every month? The answer to these questions is, not much, even as silly as these rules might seem! If people are conditioned to it, they will do it. If people think it is fun or enjoyable, they will do it. If they think everyone else is doing it, they will do it. If they are afraid not to do it, they will do it. With enough motivation, people can be made to literally get down on their knees and worship the government, and they will...

********************

If the Egyptian military were smart, instead of allowing the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood to control Egypt, they would keep power for themselves. They would declare all elections null and void on the grounds of fraud. They would then execute all the members of the Salafist parties and the Muslim Brotherhood as traitors to the country for selling out to Saudi Arabia. Then they would hold brand new elections with a new slate of candidates (all backed and approved by the military, of course). The military would then retain control of the country indirectly. The president of Egypt would be a military puppet, who would rule with a iron hand but it would be a beneficent dictatorship. The government would allow total freedom to women and even have female "candidates" in government. The hijab would be banned and all religious gear for both men and women would be banned. Women would be allowed and even encouraged to wear miniskirts, dresses and other fashionable clothing, makeup. And in fact, the government would encourage women to look "sexy." Religion would, of course, be allowed, but must only teach what is approved by the military. All religions would be allowed in the country, subject to the same conditions. The government would do everything to bolster tourism and anything that might build the economy of Egypt, contrary to what the Salafists and Islamic hardliners were planning for Egypt, (who were planning to destroy the ancient artifacts and the pyramids, or covering them.) They would even look into the feasibility of building a new Great Pyramid, using the same building techniques as the ancient Egyptians. That would put people to work and reduce poverty. Think of the amazing tourism potential of building a pyramid in the same style as the ancient ones, built by modern Egyptians, to show that they still are Egyptians!

Just a suggestion...


Next: The TV god -- a new world religion.

Comments