Essays

Political Power: A Force for Evil, A Force for Good

by David Sims

THE QUESTION was asked: “Since evil people seek and abuse political power, why should political power even exist?” You might as validly ask why universities and research institutes should exist. Since mankind, in general, is composed of persons who are insufficiently intelligent to hold positions as scientists or as teachers of science, does it follow that all universities or research institutes must be staffed and run by stupid people? No. It does not. Why not? Because the qualifications of persons who apply for those positions are checked by other persons who can pass the same admissions tests with room to spare.

To be sure, there are imitation institutions that pretend to be scientific but are not, whose staff members pretend to be qualified as scientists, but are not. These pretenders are easily recognized as promoters of theology or of social ideology, however much they prattle about “science.”

Likewise, it isn’t impossible for power to be held in good hands. It’s just that those who seek it are mostly bad people. On the other hand, and distinctly different from the essential nature of other jobs, political power works by a kind of natural logic — if we let it, and don’t stymie it with systems like “democracy” and others.

A bogus academic can be kicked out of his job. But a bad government is much more difficult to get rid of, and the problem of bad people coming to power is aggravated, not remedied, by systems of choosing whom the rulers shall be.

Any system that you put into place to reserve the offices of power to the good seekers and to deny them to the bad seekers will be gamed by the latter, so that in practice the system works contrary to the intentions of those who created it.

The only remedy that I can see is for the “system” to be the one that Nature itself devised, which works by the laws of Nature that no one has the power to game. Then you will have bad leaders and good leaders, both, but the good will occur in a larger proportion of instances. Let good, therefore, take weapons unto itself and gird itself for war. Let it do battle with evil and not be ashamed.

Yet, the good will not always prevail, but it will win more frequently than has been the case with “systems” that evil people, always clever cheaters and breakers of rules, never fail of subverting.

Power, however it is constituted in a society, attracts disgusting, immoral, ambitious sociopaths. Dictatorships do. Republics do. Democracies do. Power is to ambition as sugar is to flies. The only difference made by the form of government is the methods that the sociopaths must use to gain power.

But not all ambitions are evil. There is such a thing as a lofty mind, holding ambitions that are artistic rather than selfish. Among the ambitions that can exist is the ambition to treat one’s race as one would treat a garden, i.e., in such a way that it can be as fruitful as might be possible. More: in such a way that it can, over time, become even more potentially fruitful than it is now.

The existence of any seat of power draws the attention of ambitious people. Their ambitions might be selfish in 90% or so of cases. But political ambition can also be grand, a wanting to see the doing of meritorious mighty deeds. It might be to see humanity spread among the planets of distant stars. It might be to see the improvement of humankind on Earth.

Ambition, in other words, doesn’t have to be foul. It usually is. But not always.

Education cannot solve this problem. Educated people will be the source of the corruption. Being educated does not mean that one adheres to principles that require one to forswear using coercive powers, or using them in an evil manner. Educated people are often ignorant of true morality. Educated people will tell themselves that someone or other will gain and use such powers, and that they can, by gaining those powers themselves, “safeguard” them. Then one opportunity after another arises in which the difference between safeguarding and self-interest is more than a little blurred.

Better an honest despot, I think. Better a Hitler, who wanted a strong Germany and a healthy, prosperous German people — who did want the Jews (whose country Germany was not) to leave — even if he did have some people shot for defiance or for deviance.

Our own governments differ with despotism mostly in the fact that their corruption is hidden; their methods are dishonest; their words are lies — and their intentions toward their proper national stock are more malicious than anything Hitler ever intended with his own people.

I suppose that we may base our preferences upon our beliefs. But forms of government should be chosen by empirical methods. A dictatorship is often very bad, but it can be otherwise — if the dictator happens to be someone who regards his people as his family, by whom he hopes to do well, or even as his garden, which he means to grow as well as he can.

You are more likely to have a good dictator in a monoracial country in which the dictator arose from among its native race. You are more likely to have a bad dictator if the dictator is racially a foreigner.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

Ayn Rand's Radical Capitalism and Individualism: Definitely Not the Solution

Next post

Ban Cars or Ban Muslims? Swedes Asked

3 Comments

  1. April 12, 2017 at 8:34 pm — Reply

    Perfect last paragraph. Never in my lifetime did I think I would ever prefer a benevolent dictator over the traditional parliamentary style of government. Now, however, I see how easy it is to subvert such a style of government, even in spite of all its so-called checks and balances. When this happens, it’s virtually impossible for anything to move forward in a positive direction. Anything near consensus becomes a thing of the past. With one person in charge, a decision is made and change happens immediately, no politics, infighting, policies or programs to work through, no approval necessary. SH*T gets done and real change happens. The problem is who do you trust in such a position? Yes, in a homogeneous society, it would be easier to find such a person who has greater interests for the people rather than self-interest. Still, we have many examples of monarchs turned tyrants throughout history. Even so, Jews were often involved as royal advisors in those situations. It would seem easier to remove a single leader as opposed to a governing body of hundreds if things didn’t work out. Hmmm. What to do?

  2. Anthony Collins
    April 13, 2017 at 9:34 am — Reply

    In The Alternative, Oswald Mosley wrote:

    “We are faced with the fact that we cannot do without power: the only remedy, therefore, is to make men fit for power. What was desirable in the time of Plato, becomes a necessity in our time. It will, no doubt, soon be unfashionable to refer to that great intellect since he has been virtually dubbed a Fascist by the new thought of ‘Democracy.’ It is interesting, however, to note in passing that he was a strong opponent of power in unworthy hands, but the leading protagonist of power in the hands of men who had been selected, trained, and even bred, for that highest function. His denunciation of ‘Tyranny,’ which was exercised by a drunken and licentious lout, led the lighter minds in ‘Democracy’ at one time to proclaim him their champion. Until recently they failed to notice that he advocated giving powers to his chosen type of ‘Philosopher-Kings’ far in excess of any authority he ever denounced in a Tyrant. In ultimate analysis, the difference can be reduced to simplicity: the former was fit for power and the latter was not. Plato was not against power, as the second thoughts of ‘Democracy’ have now observed: he was preoccupied with finding men fit for power.”

    When Mosley remarked that Plato “has been virtually dubbed a Fascist by the new thought of ‘Democracy,'” he was alluding to The Open Society and Its Enemies by the Jewish liberal Karl Popper.

    Democracy is a system of reverse selection that selects for those who are unfit for power and against those who are fit for power. As Francis Parker Yockey remarked, it stands for “the superiority of the lowest type of man.”

    • Rmax Genactive Pua Mgtow
      April 15, 2017 at 11:57 am — Reply

      This is a fantastic reply, almost as good as the article itself.
      There is a simple solution to the problem of government and power itself.

      Define government strictly.

      The vague definition of government leads to its vague use of power by sociopaths.

      This is the root cause of sociopathic power.

      A definition alone has a pro rata of criteria which prevents those who do not fit the criteria from entering.

      An organisation with no definition has no natural defenders to protect it from corruption. As they have no idea what to defend it against, or what criteria values to retain. Or criteria to retain its function at its optimal.

      The definition of government should include the purposes of preservation of the gene pool and acting for the benefit of the race it serves.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.