Read on Twitter
François Guizot defined feudalism as perhaps the only form of tyranny that will be never accepted by the ruled. The theocratic despotism, the monarchic despotism can be genuinely loved and voluntarily accepted by their subjects. In contrast, the feudal despotism is always hated
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1694328891211432368
What makes the difference is that a monarch/theocrat does NOT act on his own behalf. To the contrary, he represents something larger, superior to himself. It may be God. It may be an idea. Anyway, he is only a representative of something bigger, making his rule more acceptable
Consider Stalin. He does NOT act on his own behalf. He is merely a representative of something bigger. It's not all about Stalin. It's not all focused on Stalin. There is a divine, super-human institution of which Stalin is only a temporary executive
That's how he borrows power
That's how he borrows power
Submitting to your personal will is very much more digestible if you frame yourself as merely a representative of a superior idea. If you don't really act on your own behalf, then people don't really submit to you (= human), but to the Eternal idea
That sounds better, isn't it?
That sounds better, isn't it?
Paradoxically, to maximise legitimacy and minimise resistance to your personal tyranny, you need to always appeal to something bigger
(that you are only a representative of, as we remember)
If your narcissism is uncontrollable, you will never make it
(that you are only a representative of, as we remember)
If your narcissism is uncontrollable, you will never make it
Retrospectively, the weakest point of Trumpism was that it has all about Trump. A good salesman strategy, a horrible strategy for a politician
Make it all about yourself -> minimise legitimacy and maximise the opposition
If Stalin didn't make it all about himself, why do you?
Make it all about yourself -> minimise legitimacy and maximise the opposition
If Stalin didn't make it all about himself, why do you?
Trumpism might have benefitted from shifting the focus of attention away from Trump to:
1. The Eternal Idea (that he is merely a representative of)
2. The Great Predecessors (of which he is a reverent disciple)
3. Literally anything else except for his personality
1. The Eternal Idea (that he is merely a representative of)
2. The Great Predecessors (of which he is a reverent disciple)
3. Literally anything else except for his personality
What makes the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable power is that the former is mystified. If a person in power frames himself as a representative of something bigger, it does not feel like an execution of his personal capricious power. It is usually bearable
And vice versa, nothing increases opposition as much as the open exercise of a capricious personal power. If you aim to maximise resistance, you must emphasise the arbitrary, whimsical manner of your decision making. Make it clear you are acting purely on your personal whim
To summarise
1. Submitting to an idea or principle is more or less bearable to most
2. Submitting to another human is almost always unbearable
People will tolerate almost any tyranny if the element of submitting to another human's capricious will is disguised well enough
1. Submitting to an idea or principle is more or less bearable to most
2. Submitting to another human is almost always unbearable
People will tolerate almost any tyranny if the element of submitting to another human's capricious will is disguised well enough
That is why any reasonable power will go at great length to disguise this element from the ruled. In contrast, the power that emphasises it is just unreasonable, not to say suicidal. It is unlikely to continue for long
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
