Mag3
Platinum Member
- May 31, 2008
- 13,413
- 23,592
Every dictator has enablers and it is these very enablers who make it possible for the dictator to thrive and remain powerful amidst the suffering of his victims. Dictators are egoistical, narcissistic maniacs with low self-esteem and for this reason, they surround themselves with very greedy enablers.
Dictators are oblivious to their true standing among their people because of the unrighteous hard work of the morally depraved sycophants who hang around them who then act like insulators.
From the early 1590s, at the beginning of his career, all the way through to its end, Shakespeare grappled again and again with a deeply unsettling question: how is it possible for a whole country to fall into the hands of a tyrant?
The institutions of a free society are designed to ward off those who would govern not for their country but for themselves and those who take account not of the public interest but of their own pleasure.” “A king rules over willing subjects,” but “a tyrant over the unwilling.”
Shakespeare further asked himself, under what circumstances do such cherished institutions, seemingly deep-rooted and impregnable, suddenly prove fragile? Why do large numbers of people knowingly accept being lied to? How does a figure like Richard III ascend to the throne?
Why would anyone, he asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth?
Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?
And the figures most deceived are not the gross multitude but, rather, the privileged and powerful, the sycophants, the complicit and the enablers.
In the absence of independent and professional court or military, it is almost, but never, impossible to bring down a dictatorship that uses those institutions as its savage dogs that systemically or blindly attack anyone that is a threat to the regime’s existence.
The dictatorship, cognizant of the benefit, will surely do its best to keep democratic institutions weak and unprofessional because it knows the moment they escape from its jaw, the game is over.
Enablers come in all shapes and forms and one of them is silence. Sometimes silence is not a good thing. It is difficult to make some sense out it. The silent majority is one of the worst enablers of dictatorship. Dictators are happy with the silent majority.
They count on it for their longevity; as long as it remains silent, they fear not the few vocal oppositions; they would do everything under the sun to silence those few agitators that urge the silent majority to wake up!
Dictators are oblivious to their true standing among their people because of the unrighteous hard work of the morally depraved sycophants who hang around them who then act like insulators.
From the early 1590s, at the beginning of his career, all the way through to its end, Shakespeare grappled again and again with a deeply unsettling question: how is it possible for a whole country to fall into the hands of a tyrant?
The institutions of a free society are designed to ward off those who would govern not for their country but for themselves and those who take account not of the public interest but of their own pleasure.” “A king rules over willing subjects,” but “a tyrant over the unwilling.”
Shakespeare further asked himself, under what circumstances do such cherished institutions, seemingly deep-rooted and impregnable, suddenly prove fragile? Why do large numbers of people knowingly accept being lied to? How does a figure like Richard III ascend to the throne?
Why would anyone, he asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth?
Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?
And the figures most deceived are not the gross multitude but, rather, the privileged and powerful, the sycophants, the complicit and the enablers.
In the absence of independent and professional court or military, it is almost, but never, impossible to bring down a dictatorship that uses those institutions as its savage dogs that systemically or blindly attack anyone that is a threat to the regime’s existence.
The dictatorship, cognizant of the benefit, will surely do its best to keep democratic institutions weak and unprofessional because it knows the moment they escape from its jaw, the game is over.
Enablers come in all shapes and forms and one of them is silence. Sometimes silence is not a good thing. It is difficult to make some sense out it. The silent majority is one of the worst enablers of dictatorship. Dictators are happy with the silent majority.
They count on it for their longevity; as long as it remains silent, they fear not the few vocal oppositions; they would do everything under the sun to silence those few agitators that urge the silent majority to wake up!
