Why do the few control the many and how do they get away with it?
We are all born into a world we did not create.
Even the leaders of the world, visible and not so, are simply human and subject to all the foibles the rest of us are. The media and government plant the seed of the idea that the people put forth as leaders are somehow smarter and more powerful than a regular person. We have this idea that famous people and politicians are more important than we are, when the truth is most of that importance is simple public relations illusion. Presidents and Prime Ministers serve international banking fronts for long standing global Royal con jobs; yet these mascots do actually sign very real bills into law that have real effect on us all. Staged events that have obvious continuity mistakes are more than likely the result of our collective error prone nature. Perhaps crowd psychology simply amplifies this behavior. I think that herd mentality effects even and perhaps especially those of the aristocratic class and this might explain why the artificial world is the way it is.
No single group is in control.
No single mind or one superior agenda is in charge of civilization.
Each part of the pyramid scheme, each social level, supports and balances and reflects the rest.
If you want to start to actually change the world there's only one place to look; and only one mind you need be concerned with changing.
image source: Narcissus (mythology) - Wikipedia
Social Media Identities
Us vs Them
"Collective narcissism (or group narcissism) is a type of narcissism where an individual has an inflated self-love of his or her own ingroup, where an "ingroup" is a group in which an individual is personally involved. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism asserts that one can have a similar excessively high opinion of a group, and that a group can function as a narcissistic entity. Collective narcissism is related to ethnocentrism; however, ethnocentrism primarily focuses on self-centeredness at an ethnic or cultural level, while collective narcissism is extended to any type of ingroup, beyond just cultures and ethnicities. Some theorists believe group-level narcissism to be an extension of individual narcissism, though others believe the two to be independent of each other."
National Narcissism source: Raoul Mortley Talks
"Published on Sep 12, 2013
Narcissism has a definition in modern psychology, but also a long history in the culture of the West. This address goes back to the deep roots of the Western understanding of narcissism, looks at the myth itself and the poem of Ovid, the commentary of Plato, and modern philosophical vestiges of the ancient western fable. The paper takes the vantage point of Plato in that narcissism is said to involve the preoccupation with one's reflection in the eyes of other people, and posits the view that narcissism is not only limited to individuals. Preoccupation with one's image is a characteristic of nations as well. This address will be published in written form in a Bond University Press book shortly to appear, edited by Jonathan Ping."
"An example of the first case listed above is that of national identity."
"One might feel a great sense of love and respect for one's nation, flag, people, or governmental systems as a result of a collectively narcissistic perspective. It must be remembered that these feelings are not explicitly the result of collective narcissism, and that collective narcissism is not explicitly the cause of patriotism, or any other group-identifying expression. However, glorification of one's group (such as a nation) can be seen in some cases as a manifestation of collective narcissism."
"Another sub-concept encompassed by collective narcissism is that of the "Charismatic Leader-Follower Relationship" theorized by political psychologist Jerrold Post. Post takes the view that collective narcissism is exhibited as a collection of individual narcissists, and discusses how this type of relationship emerges when a narcissistic charismatic leader, appeals to narcissistic "ideal-hungry" followers."
"Like baboons, our elected leaders are literally addicted to power"
"Democracy, the separation of judicial powers and the free press all evolved for essentially one purpose – to reduce the chance of leaders becoming power addicts. Power changes the brain triggering increased testosterone in both men and women. Testosterone and one of its by-products called 3-androstanediol, are addictive, largely because they increase dopamine in a part of the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens. Cocaine has its effects through this system also, and by hijacking our brain’s reward system, it can give short-term extreme pleasure but leads to long-term addiction, with all that that entails. Unfettered power has almost identical effects, but in the light of yesterday’s Leveson Inquiry interchanges in London, there seems to be less chance of British government ministers becoming addicted to power. Why? Because, as it appears from the emails released by James Murdoch yesterday, they appeared to be submissive to the all-powerful Murdoch empire, hugely dependent on the support of this organization for their jobs and status, who could swing hundreds of thousands of votes for or against them.
Submissiveness and dominance have their effects on the same reward circuits of the brain as power and cocaine. Baboons low down in the dominance hierarchy have lower levels of dopamine in key brain areas, but if they get ‘promoted’ to a higher position, then dopamine rises accordingly. This makes them more aggressive and sexually active, and in humans similar changes happen when people are given power. What’s more, power also makes people smarter, because dopamine improves the functioning of the brain’s frontal lobes. Conversely, demotion in a hierarchy decreases dopamine levels, increases stress and reduces cognitive function. But too much power - and hence too much dopamine - can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others. The Murdoch empire and its acolytes seem to have got carried away by the power they have wielded over the British political system and the unfettered power they have had - unconstrained by any democratic constraints - has led to the quite extraordinary behaviour and arrogance that has been corporately demonstrated."
Political Psych 101:
"Political psychology is an interdisciplinary academic field dedicated to understanding politics, politicians and political behavior from a psychological perspective."
"The relationship between politics and psychology is considered bi-directional, with psychology being used as a lens for understanding politics and politics being used as a lens for understanding psychology. As an interdisciplinary field, political psychology borrows from a wide range of other disciplines, including: anthropology, sociology, international relations, economics, philosophy, media, journalism and history. Political psychology aims to understand interdependent relationships between individuals and contexts that are influenced by beliefs, motivation, perception, cognition, information processing, learning strategies, socialization and attitude formation. Political psychological theory and approaches have been applied in many contexts such as: leadership role; domestic and foreign policy making; behavior in ethnic violence, war and genocide; group dynamics and conflict; racist behavior; voting attitudes and motivation; voting and the role of the media; nationalism; and political extremism. In essence political psychologists study the foundations, dynamics, and outcomes of political behavior using cognitive and social explanations."
"Political psychology originated in Western Europe, where it was closely tied to the emergence of new disciplines and paradigms, as well as to the precise social and political context in various countries The discipline political psychology was formally introduced during the Franco-Prussian war and the socialist revolution, stirred by the rise of the Paris Commune (1871). The term "political psychology" was first introduced by the ethnologist Adolph Bastian in his book Man in History (1860). The philosopher Hippolyte Taine (1828–1893), a founder of the Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, applied Bastian's theories in his works The Origins of Contemporary France (1875–1893), to ideas on the founding and development of the Third Republic. The head of Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, Emile Boutmy (1835–1906), was a famous explorer of social, political and geographical concepts of national interactions. He contributed various works on political psychology such as English People; A study of their Political Psychology (1901) and The American People; Elements of Their Political Psychology (1902). The contributor of crowd theory Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931) suggested that crowd activity subdued will and polluted rational thought which resulted in uncontrollable impulses and emotions. He suggested in his works Psychology of Socialism (1896) and Political Psychology and Social Defense (1910) that in the uncontrollable state of a crowd people were more vulnerable to submission and leadership, and suggested that embracing nationalismwould remedy this."
"At the turn of the century Oxford University and Cambridge University introduced the discipline political psychology offering courses on "The Sciences of the Man", along with the foundation of the Psychological society (1901) and the Sociological society (1904). The Oxford historian G. B. Grundy (1861–1948) noted political psychology (1917) as a sub-discipline of history. Motivated by social and political behavior during World War I he deemed the new branch of historical science "The Psychology of Men Acting in Masses". He intended the science to instrument the clarification of mistaken beliefs about others intentions based on mistaken beliefs about ourselves. The intellectual Graham Wallas (1859–1932) implicated the significance of studying psychology in politics in Human Nature in Politics (1908). Wallace stated the importance of enlightening politicians and the public to unconscious psychological processes to help to guard oneself against exploitation and to control one's own psychological processes intellectually. He suggested in Great Society (1917) that recognition of such processes could help to build a more functional humanity."
"Across the Atlantic the first American to be considered a political psychologist was Harold Lasswell (1902–1978) whose research was also spurred by a sociological fascination of World War I. His work Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927) discussed the use of applying psychological theories in order to enhance propaganda technique. Lasswell moved to Europe shortly after where he started to tie Freudian and Adler personality theories to politics and published Psychopathology and Politics (1930). His major theories involved the motives of the politically active and the relation between propaganda and personality.
Another contributing factor to the development of Political Psychology was the introduction of psychometrics and "The Measurement of Attitude" by Thurstone and Chave (1929). The methodological revolution in social science gave quantitative grounds and therefore more credibility to Political Psychology. Research into political preference during campaigns was spurred by George Gallup (1901–1984), who founded the "American Institute of Public Opinion". The 1940s election in America drew a lot of attention in connection with the start of World War II. Gallup, Roper and Crossley instigated research into the chances of Roosevelt being re-elected. Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet (1944) also conducted a famous panel study "The People's Choice" on the 1940s election campaign. These studies drew attention to the possibility of measuring political techniques using psychological theories. The entry of the US into World War II spiraled vast research into fields such as war technique, propaganda, group moral, psycho-biography and culture conflict to name a few, with the U.S. army and Navy recruiting young psychologists.Thus the discipline quickly developed and gained international accreditation. McGuire identifies three broad phases in the development of political psychology, these three phases are: 1.The era of personality studies in the 1940s and 1950s dominated by psychoanalysis 2.The era of political attitudes and voting behavior studies in the 1960s and 1970s characterized by the popularity of"rational man" assumptions 3.An era since the 1980s and 1990s, which has focused on political beliefs, information processing and decision making, and has dealt in particular with international politics."
The Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics and Behavior
The Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics and Behavior source: Wiley
We're Better Than Them!
"In Sigmund Freud's 1922 study Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, he noted how every little canton looks down upon the others with contempt, as an instance of what would later to be termed Freud's theory of collective narcissism. Thereafter, Wilhelm Reich and Isaiah Berlin explored what the latter called the rise of modern national narcissism: the self-adoration of peoples. "Group narcissism" is described in a 1973 book entitled The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness by psychologist Erich Fromm. In the 1990s, Pierre Bourdieu wrote of a sort of collective narcissism affecting intellectual groups, inclining them to turn a complacent gaze on themselves. The term "collective narcissism" was highlighted anew by researchers Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, Aleksandra Cichocka, Roy Eidelson, and Nuwan Jayawickreme in 2009 in their study "Collective Narcissism and its Social Consequences". Noting how people's desire to see their own groups as better than other groups can lead to intergroup bias, Henri Tajfel approached the same phenomena in the seventies and eighties, so as to create social identity theory, which argues that people's motivation to obtain positive self-esteem from their group memberships is one driving-force behind in-group bias."
"Collective narcissism and ethnocentrism are closely related; they can be positively correlated and often shown to be coexistent, but they are independent in that either can exist without the presence of the other. In a study conducted by PhD Boris Bizumic, some ethnocentrism was shown to be an expression of group-level narcissism. It was noted, however, that not all manifestations of ethnocentrism are narcissistically based, and conversely, not all cases of group-level narcissism are by any means ethnocentric. It is suggested that ethnocentrism, when pertaining to discrimination or aggression based on the self-love of one's group, or in other words, based on exclusion from one's self-perceived superior group is an expression of collective narcissism. In this sense, it might be said the collective and group narcissism overlap with ethnocentrism depending on given definitions, and the breadth of their acceptance."