monitoring the abyss

I probably mentioned I was going to post a unified theory of money.

And then I didn't.

Because it doesn't matter.

...

I realized most of what I have to say is being said (and ignored) anyway.  So, there isn't really any point to wasting my time writing it.  Or this.

I shifted to thinking about "free will" in the microsense, but never got around to a free will post, and then "free will" in the macrosense, which I suppose this post is about.

It seems to me almost everything we claim to believe in as a human society is a sham.  We are genetically unable and unwilling to see things as they really are.

HYPOTHESIS: Most of society runs via an unhealthy co-dependency relationship between leaders and the people who follow them.

Query:  If it is the "normal" condition, is it correct to label it "unhealthy?"

Observation: The shift of wealth and power to a tiny minority has been accelerating and more obvious throughout my lifetime.  It has been with the seeming complicity of those most harmed by the transfer.  It has also seemingly in direct violation of the mantras and platitudes we claim govern society and personal relations.  Theft and fraud are illegal and immoral -- unless it is institutionalized and done on a multi-trillion dollar scale.  Murder, mayhem, destruction of natural resources, waste and poisoning of the planet are illegal and immoral -- unless these activities are institutionalized and done on a global scale.

Studying history, we can't say this is merely an aberration of our time.  It is and has been the human condition throughout recorded history.  And yet, nevertheless, some sort of material "progress" seems to inch forward.  How are we to understand and reconcile these realities?

I noticed an odd coincidence.  One percent of human beings are arguably described by psychologists as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths."  The majority of global wealth is presently in the hands of 1% of the population.  I was looking up the definitions for psychopaths and sociopaths because I was uncertain as to the difference.  (Apparently, not much, mostly semantical.)  That research led me to the "1%" diagnosis and this rather odd coincidence.

Of course, neither number is particularly accurate, so the overlap is perhaps not significant.  My primary observation was, that in my view, people with sociopathic tendencies seem to "rise to the top" or "take charge" in any given hierarchy.  I felt that was strange, but with the 1% estimate, that means 1 in every 100 people is clinically a sociopath.  So, every group of 100 or more persons statistically can be expected to have at least 1 sociopath.  No surprise then, if that person immediately takes control of the group.

This explained to me why, in my experience, it seemed that even when I attempt to affiliate with a group of people with seemingly similar goals to my own, the immediate leader of the group is someone dictatorial who quickly subverts the general goals of the group the his/her own agenda.

So, it's always seemed to me that if we could just agree to keep the psychopaths and sociopaths out of power, that would solve humanity's problems, correct?

Not correct.  History is essentially the narrative of psychopathic control of populations and their wondrous deeds the psychopaths engaged in.  Control of society by psycopaths is not the aberration, it is the norm.  Yet it seems to easy to avoid!

Which is when it finally dawned on me ... it is a co-dependency relationship.  The vast majority of people seek out and choose to be led by psychopaths.  It is an unconscious choice -- and they don't realize they are doing it.  But, it is a relationship no less destructive than the abuser-abused co-dependency relationships some people repeatedly enter into.  The co-dependent spouse, for instance, immediately gravitates to a similar abusive mate once extracting herself from the first abusive relationship.  Her friends can all see where she is heading, but she, on the other hand, can only see her new man as a "knight in shining armor."

And so in a more macro-sense, those of us who are not attracted to psychopathic leaders and can see them for what they are -- we are entirely unable to see or comprehend why the majority of the public (or the majority of the participants in any group) are instantly enamored with leaders who are destructive to their own wellbeing.

Given the nature of social constructs, these co-dependency relationships of many/majority to one are not only harmful to the particpants in the relationship, they are enormously harmful to those of us who choose not to enter into the relationship.  Like friends trying to get the abused spouse to finally leave her abusive husband, we endlessly attempt to convince the co-dependent public to open their eyes and save themselves (and us).  Except for rare moments, they fail to do so -- and almost inevitably end up in another abusive relationship.

I think that if I were to carefully analyze history -- which I have not done -- a reasonable conclusion would emerge.  The conclusion would be that great social cataclysms bring the most progress.  I would intuitively have expected the opposite.  The great depression and WWII brought about great post-war prosperity and a significant narrowing of the wealth/power divide.   Whereas, the ensuing prosperity led us back to an enormous (probably worst ever) global wealth/power divide.  It seems to me certain that the weathiest globalists are far more powerful and better off than even the most despotic aristocrats of earlier times.

The reason would be that when the psycopathic excesses tear apart the functional systems -- the very systems put in place by the psychopaths for their own well-being -- a void appears for a short time that can be filled by those with broader expectations for humanity.

The adage has always been that empires decay from within.  In essence, the parasites kill the host.  Social progress -- to the extent any is made, which is debatable -- occurs between infections and not during the imperial reigns and eras of great wealth (as one might have expected).