The Elite are Insane

This is an excerpt from an email, so it’s thematically awkward.

I know where the Left is coming from. They have just a few governing ideals: Justice, Freedom, Equality. I understand that very well. I just can’t understand the conspiracy theorists with their Illuminati/One World Government/Trilateral Commission/Evil Bankers/Masons/Order of the Cincinnati Grand Theory. The idea of some Super-Rational conspiracy to take over the world is completely ridiculous under just a cursory glance at humanity – these people just don’t seem to understand that humans with a large amount of money are just humans very good at making money (very ruthless in making money). They seem to grant them all kinds of other abilities like the ability to maintain vast secrets, the desire to rule the world (above and beyond profiting from it). It’s some kind of Rationality Worship combined with a misunderstanding of the nature of the elite. The elite are dangerous not because of their rationality (which I’ll talk about below) but because of their wealth, which in the society we live in translates to power. With this power they control governments (not exactly secretly), so other than perhaps greater efficiency I don’t see why they would care about a one-world government (in other words, a one government world).

Precisely because they assign these people Masters of the World status based on their Super-Rationality, they assume everyday people to be Irrational, or at least Rationality-Lite. Hence the need for Conspiracy Theories – to provide the Irrational basis to appeal to Irrational people.

But it’s just the other way around – they have the psychology backwards. It’s normal people who are Rational, and it’s the elite who are power-hungry monsters (it’s not rational to desire to attain vast power, as anyone like that who has met an angry mob can attest to). Precisely because they are power-hungry monsters they endure massive propaganda campaigns that they and others of the elite wage on themselves. They turn themselves into pathological liars – they become blind to the pain and suffering they directly cause. It’s only in their ability to lie, deceive, distort, and misrepresent that they can continue their ways. The elite do not gather together and share bouts of evil laughter while they rub their hands together and decide how best to destroy the world – they gather together and share ideas for how best to help the world by profiting from it. To their thinking, their profit is the world’s profit. Their system helps people even if it kills them. This isn’t a con, it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just the ultimate in self-delusion. The elite aren’t Super-Rational, they are Super-Irrational. They are insane. A reason they aren’t institutionalized is that society tells us that by definition people who make money must be sane. Poverty can be an indication of insanity but wealth never is, because the greatest example of rationality is money-making ability, according to the society we live in. If you don’t believe me do a research project mapping poverty to institutionalization (either in the prison system or the mental health system). Rich people except in very rare cases can’t be criminals or crazies. Rich crazy people are called “eccentric”.

Or look at it this way – does anyone who creates vast pain and suffering tell himself he’s creating vast pain and suffering? Hitler was saving the world, according to Hitler. Aren’t the elite of the world just saving the world, whether it’s from Communism, or Capitalism (for the old Communist elite), or the Liberals, or the Collectivists, or the Socialists, or the Left, or the Bleeding-Hearts, or the Weak, or the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Savages? It’s the elite who make up (and then force themselves to believe) vast fictions to justify their actions – it’s the elite who are Super-Irrational. It’s the everyday human who is Rational, who works for a living, who plans his finances, who plans his time. The elite can go on a rape spree and get off with a high-priced lawyer… for what use is Rationality to them? That they’ve departed the world of the Rational is a sign of their exalted status – so Tom Cruise acts crazy on Oprah’s couch (or otherwise) – Paris Hilton tapes one of her sex sessions and puts it out to the world. Fox News is pure self-delusion – there is no “leftist” version of Fox News because the true left, the Populist left, is Rational.

I’m correct about all of this as far as I can tell, but it hardly matters. Most truths people just aren’t ready to accept. Hopefully at least the Conspiracy Theorists will listen and give their Conspiracy Theories some thought.


5 Responses to “The Elite are Insane”

  1. mad dog Says:

    If the Elite are so ‘insane’ and devoid of rationalism, how do you think they got to where they were? How do you think they got so much money, political influence, power, material goods, virtual control over governments, banking, universities, etc. ?

    Are you saying all that stuff magically landed in their hands one day?

  2. briankoontz Says:

    Rationality or irrationality is not relevant with respect to that. Most of the cause of wealth is pre-existing wealth. A lot of the rest of the cause is social (existing in elite society). Some of the rest is some skill – whether it be organizational, entrepreneurial, or whatnot that relates to their wealth. Mostly though, wealth is generated out of a kind of narrow-vision that sees reality in mere terms of the generation of wealth. So for example, if you cared about nothing other than the generation of wealth, if that was your life 24/7, you’d probably have a good deal of wealth, at least if you were so applied over the course of many years.

    It’s one kind of rationality to examine a corporation and increase it’s profitability. Of course, if you have that kind of rationality but don’t have the position of CEO it’s a moot point. It’s another kind of rationality to, let’s say, lead a healthy family or support a community or do whatever else that does not maximize wealth or in many cases even lead to it.

    It’s necessary for any CEO to be irrational, precisely in order to be rational with respect to maximizing profits. Dumping massive pollution into the environment is clearly irrational, in the sense that the harm is greater than the benefit, but because the legal and financial structure is set up to not make the CEO pay the cost, his analysis is to dump the pollution.

    You could call the kind of insanity the elite have to be Rational in the sense that their insanity serves their profit-motive. However, it’s not Super-Rational in the sense that it’s some kind of conscious calculation they undertake. They don’t say “Hmm, I think I’ll ignore all pain and suffering I cause in order to pretend I don’t cause any”. It’s just that their profit-maximizing sense, their will to wealth, is so incredibly strong (it’s that will that led to their wealth in the first place) that they automatically and unconsciously behave as political monsters with respect to any threat to their wealth. They simply block out of their mind any reality that they perceive could lead to a loss in their wealth, such as the concept that they might be hurting people and that they should pay reparations. George W. Bush is a perfect example. According to him, he’s a great president. According to him, he’s a Texas Ranger, a moral visionary, he’s probably a great husband, and who knows what else. This isn’t a calculated facade, he really believes all of that. That is to say, he’s propagandized himself into believing it because he believes it serves his profit-motive (power-motive) and he cares about that so much more than he cares about anything else. The truth to George Bush is an inconvenience, something to be overcome with the sheer force of his self-delusion and his ability to delude others.

    The Will to Wealth is not a Rational will, and it’s precisely because it’s not rational that it’s destroying the world. People who care about nothing besides power are not rational, they are monsters.

    When one talks to someone from the World Bank and tries to explain to them that their policies are hurting the people they claim to serve, the words can never really enter their brain. Their brain just isn’t wired to accept that type of criticism. Their pre-existing propaganda is too strong.

    Look at it this way – in a world of rulers those rulers can be anything. Maybe the rulership is based on genetics – so just a certain bloodline. Maybe it’s based on the ability to play ping-pong, so a tournament decides the World Emperor. In our present society, we’ve decided to make our rulers be institutions called corporations. A kind of profit-maximizing machine that discounts if not entirely eliminates all other interests. And then whoever exists within that structure whereby they become CEO (by the normal combination of power-management, ability, politics, etc.) becomes a ruler.

    Or look at it this way – let’s say we established a society where rulership was based on the ability to collect fly-swatters. So then you’d be arguing that one person was more rational than another because he had more fly-swatters. You’d be like – How do you think they got so many fly swatters, so much political influence, power, virtual control over governments, banking, universities, etc.?

    The vast majority of human beings are rational – they really don’t care about wealth. What they care about is LIFE. Only to the extent that wealth serves life do they care about wealth.

    The elite turns the logic upside-down. Instead of gaining wealth in order to live they live in order to gain wealth. Honestly, if you were to take away 90% of the wealth of the corporations of CEO’s most of them would commit suicide the next day (assuming they couldn’t get the wealth you took back). Money is more important than living. CEO’s weren’t born this way – they developed into corporate-machines in order to maximize their profitability.

    Who has the most fly-swatters right now? Probably some irrational freak who cares more about fly-swatters than he does about life itself.


    Only because we honor money instead of fly-swatters instead of calling rich people irrational freaks who only care about money we call them “Sir”.

    The Yuppies had it exactly right. They often didn’t have any children because children are very expensive. They were just maximizing their profitability.

    Honor God and you bow before his priests. Honor Mammon and you bow before his. The only difference is in the definition of the god you serve.

    When will we stop bowing to rulers? The same day we have democracy. Then we will bow, simultaneously, to each other.

  3. briankoontz Says:

    Here’s the difference between a human (if you want to be kind to the elite, call them regular humans) and an elite:

    The elite exists to profit. He lives to generate wealth. Usually, wealth for him is used to create more wealth. Mammon’s Law. There are actually more kinds of elites (at least one more) but for simplicity’s sake I’ll just deal with this.

    The human exists to benefit life. His concerns are the environment, other humans, his family, his friends, his community, his passions, his world. Maybe he serves these concerns by financing them, maybe by some other means. For him, wealth is just another means to an end, judged on its merit based on it’s degree of benefit to the things he cares about.

    The elite will. usually, be *wealthier*. They are wealthy in the same sense that a man we accurately recognize as irrational might have 100,000 fly swatters in his house. When you care about one thing far more than anything else, that’s all you ever focus on. That’s all you ever do.

    Examine the life of a high elite, let’s say a CEO. He accumulates vast wealth. At the age of 50 he might have a net worth of $100 Million. Now what does he do? *He keeps being a CEO*! You might say in some entranced rationality-mode “Of course he keeps being a CEO, look at how lucrative it is!* But that’s missing the point. Being a CEO is a difficult, high stress job. Furthermore, it’s very consuming. Why, if you had $100 Million, wouldn’t you enjoy life? The answer is simple – people who enjoy life don’t accumulate $100 Million. People who accumulate $100 Million have one enjoyment in life – accumulating $100 Million. So Bill Gates is still running Microsoft. He could be solving pretty much any problem in the world that’s based on lack of money – a fraction of his net worth would eliminate almost all poverty and poverty-related disease in the world. But instead he continues to accumulate wealth. It’s what he enjoys doing. Is Bill Gates rational? Is the man with 100,000 fly swatters rational?

    The elite aren’t so much wealthy as *accumulators* of wealth. The person who ends poverty in the world most likely will not be wealthy, which seems to go against all logic unless you understand the elite. The elite are like the dragons of myth, sitting on their pile of gold (back before there was such a thing as investment). We don’t have a high opinion of dragons, why do we have a high opinion of the elite?

  4. mad dog Says:

    Here’s another way for me to say the things I have been trying to tell you:

  5. briankoontz Says:

    I see the underlying notions of most of what you link as off-base. If you think what I say about the links is inaccurate or my theories concerning the Bush Administration to be inaccurate, I advise you to demonstrate that. It’s not the best possible debate when I provide a bunch of words and you provide a bunch of links.

    I’ll address your link:

    The link implies that the problems with the American government are a recent phenomenon, as when he says “The nation has lost its way and is completely off track. We should not be confronted with our president telling us that he is the decider.”

    America has never been a democracy, and the form of government presently in office is Neoconservative, which began in full force with Reagan but elements of which were present as far back as Nixon. So this particular brand of “off track” began over 25 or 35 years ago.

    Furthermore, an examination of Congress shows the same thing: the Newt Gingrich revolution, again in the 1980s, embraced Neoconservative principles and methods, reaching it’s peak with the “Contract with America” in the 1990s.

    All the Bush II administration is is a more confident, more aggressive version of what has come before. The underlying Neoconservative agenda of socialist revolution is finally starting to play out. For most Americans, the Bush II administration has been their first real awakening to this whole process. That doesn’t, however, unlike what the article implies, means it began when they awoke. The world does not begin to exist when one opens one’s eyes.

    Here’s another example of the lack of knowledge of the writer:

    “It should be the people who decide and our tool of decision ought to be the voting booth. But many Americans are so disenchanted with the current voting procedures and so distrustful of the tallying of the votes they have given up and no longer bother to stand in line to vote.”

    This shows a complete lack of historical knowledge. In fact, America has had a low voting turnout for nearly a century at least, probably longer (probably for the entire nation’s history except for the very beginning). Here’s the data in percentage of the Voting Age Population that voted in each presidential election:

    1924: 48.9%
    1928: 51.8%
    1932; 52.6%
    1936: 56.8%
    1940: 58.8%
    1944: 56.1%
    1948: 51.1%
    1952: 61.6%
    1956: 59.4%
    1960: 63.06%
    1964: 60.92%
    1968: 60.83%
    1972: 55.21%
    1976: 53.55%
    1980: 52.56%
    1984: 53.11%
    1988: 50.11%
    1992: 55.09%
    1996: 49.08%
    2000: 51.31%
    2004: 56.69%

    The election *after* Bush II’s first term saw the highest turnout in 36 years, and the highest increase in turnout from the previous election in over half a century. How this meshes with “no longer bothering to stand in line to vote” is not clear except in the writer’s head.

    The fact is, again, that America has never been a democracy and the American people were just as clear on this in 1924 when they “didn’t bother to stand in line to vote” as they have ever been afterward.

    Take a close look at the data set. Note that the highest numbers were from the post World War II period, and the decline began with the Neoconservative period. This is no coincidence – authoritarians who promote the threat of fascism usually depress voters into not voting (except if their anger gets riled, as in 2004).

    History is everything. The world neither began nor will end with George W. Bush.

    What makes the Bush II administration different is that, like their mentor Nixon, they openly attempt to enrage the American people. Take a close look at Nixon’s policies: by today’s standards they would be considered socialist (not by socialist’s standards however). You might think that Neoconservatism and Socialism don’t mix, but according to my theory already described in this blog they do. If Nixon failed to create socialism, then it’s obviously necessary to move even farther to the right, to enrage the American public even more, to finally cause Rocky to knock out the right and usher in the socialist utopia. If the Bush II administration believes one thing it’s that government can’t do anything right.

    This is the place and time not for rage, unless one wants to be a Neoconservative pawn. This is the place and time for utter rationality, for reason, for debate, for history, for knowledge. It’s not enough to usher in socialism even if that’s what you want… it will doom the United States if the means by which socialism is created is the threat of fascism. Because then the threat of fascism will be used again, and again, and again, and every threat has the potential to be realized, just like a careless blow could knock Rocky out instead of the other way around.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: