The narrative of humanity is marked by its responses to calamity. The tyrannical elements among us are tolerated in their infancy so that when they rise to dangerous heights the remainder of us might struggle against them, as a way to show our determination to be differentiated from such selfishness. In this way, for hundreds of thousands of years have humans existed and evolved along with their social networks to utilize the tribal version of dictatorship vs defiance, as an evolutionary design, that is, a design of social constructs that are selected for by evolution. Governmental upheaval is an evolutionary selection that results in an expanded mind by social responses to the conniving merit of the usurper of democratic and/or communal governmental structures. To clarify, when society is stressed with a cruel dictator the response by the people serves to alter the thinking of the group, and so of the individual.
The very constructs of faith have also been shaped by this struggle, and are shown in that written passages often have multiple positions available on any subject, presented side by side in the very same religious texts, so that depending on whether the sociopath or the heroes are in power both might use the same tool to carry out this fight, and in this way a people might remain unified by some social constructs outside of politics. The great irony here is that when religion itself becomes a tool in this struggle it must also become the weapon that the people must fight against, and so the people seeking justice must destroy the religion (or at least deny the religion – but another religion soon will supplant it), and destroy all social constructs, for that matter, except for their one agreement that they will not be treated unfairly, which can never be spelled out in law or doctrine, other than the contract signed with the blood of brothers and sisters fallen.
Over time even the unity of the social is something that can be controlled by the tyrant, and with every such trick and clever attempt to ascend to rule, the group advances in mentality, using cultural knowledge to help shape the evolution of the mind. Every failure and success of this social struggle enlightens more individuals within the group, and another note is made in history, yes in written word and also in The History of Culture. The history of culture is written in expressions on the face, in the words people use, and in the pace of the step upon the public streets. The histories taken together will show those who follow what tricks have been attempted, what has worked and what has failed.
As a species, we have evolved to allow for the manipulation of our social experiences on a mass scale as a way to evolve our abilities to think and improve in sciences and communication. It would seem that such drastic changes in governance would be dangerous to the individual, and they are, but the survival of the group is improved by cultural history, and better able to defend themselves against forces outside the tribe or group when they are strong enough to survive the challenges from within the group.
But a group is not a person, and so the flesh must evolve to meet the needs of the social. What better tool to stir up drama than pride, for pride should not exist in a purely ethical world. The group’s need for the undulations of chaos has more to do with a single person’s sense of pride rather than anything that might be broken in the temporary bureaucratic structures or safety nets.
Pride is a wave that crests throughout life, providing surprise and love at our birth, giving us the demanding nature to stay fed and cared for, challenging us to work within a network of other people creating a community of protections and collective benefits, then it makes us crash against the rocks of those same structures in our prime years so that we can advance within the social and lastly, it drops us into depths of resentments or regrets in our growing age, so that we become the target of youthful retribution.
The great religious notion of being born again is a fable to the cycles of governance etched by the chisel of an individual’s pride, whereby the conditions arise where the good might reclaim leadership before being degraded themselves by corruption of the heart, to then be overthrown during a battle with more young idealists (praise be the young) and the group once more is rejuvenated by righteous pride. Pride is our sin, and our salvation.
Since our last revolutions occurred (in the 1970s and the following corruption during the 1980s) with new tools of information and science, so too do we now find ourselves embarking on another revolution with a new generation using recently invented tools and science. With the inundation of information taking place today everything becomes weaponized and meaning is lost, and the interconnected pieces of the struggle have never been so complex.
Is it possible, perhaps, during this struggle that the purest ideal is achievable? The odds are against it, but if it is possible then the root of our internal motivations must be understood by a majority of the people, for only when all the people are at last enlightened might they be better able to ward off corruption, for a while at least.
It would seem from this proposition that there is an evolutionary benefit to revolution, but in today’s age with globally devastating tools, overthrows of control can have far reaching and deadly consequences. One might ponder if allowing for the cycles of tyranny to exist with constraints would be possible at all (such as ways for a dictator to rise and be resisted without resetting the entire system), but that is too risky and it is more likely that putting society in such a cage would itself be a dictatorship that would require overthrow. It might be possible to have systems in place to check against a rising dictatorship, and that would seem a logical move, but the operators of those systems could never be guarded against being overthrown as part of a larger plot (I don’t understand how the Chinese seem to have found a balance).
The history of trying to fully enable all the people in democratic purity has seemed to fail in the past. It is too time consuming, and that the system is pliant to control by cult leaders who trick the people into voting away their freedoms is itself a notable failure. The mixtures of the current democracy in the U.S. system is close to solving the problem, but it has left itself open to corruption by the trick of law that infers person-hood upon an the inanimate abscess of ‘business’.
The current system has just enough resentment and infighting established within so that the pride of an elected individual is allowed to rage against the constraints of the group harmlessly, so that even if one does rise to power so many others of equal footing can fight back, and only when all the branches of government are corrupted under the same authoritarian will they then be able to exercise a takeover of the government. With the added power inferred onto business interests, that power is much more likely to be consolidated into dictatorship, and this is how the financing of officials has become a corruption of democracy.
That wasn’t very coherent, but my coffee has seriously worn off by now.