Organized political dissent not only deteriorates the strength of the body politic (that is, the proletariat, or most populous class in the vast majority of societies) by creating rifts between unlike-minded individuals and groups, but also erodes the stability of any government which is subjected to its mutinous ardor for the same reasons. The main issue and destructive force behind this dissent is, of course, the organization. Historical examples of small, well-commanded bands of “revolutionaries” seizing power from much larger and more exquisite governments. The Bolsheviks, led by atheist Vladimir Lenin, led an armed uprising against the fair and noble Czars in the 1917 Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya, or October Revolution. Spain’s powerful and respected Prince Philip II’s Armada Invencible, Grande y Felicísima was traitorously attacked in 1588 by Queen Elizabeth I’s roguish and dastardly (and vastly inferior) navy as it returned home from honorable exercises near Ireland.
+/-
The lessons which can be gleaned from the historically disappointing losses in the face of political upheaval are invaluable ones to any director of power in any governmental system. As a man of reason, sound mind, and good conscience, I feel it my duty to inform the world and my own ruling powers of not only the perils which may be rising at this very time, but also of precautions and methods which may be employed to cool the rising tempers which threaten to burst into mutiny or to mitigate damages received, should ample support be collected by the radicals responsible for any political upheavals.
The first principle to be understood for the absolute protection of the aristocracy and governmental power is that the illusion of democratic power must be sustained at all times, regardless of the government’s true nature. Any ignorant layman can run a government as an iron-fisted dictator, provided he has the necessary resources, provisions, and influence to enact fear as a means of control, but a true Machiavellian genius is required to sustain a functional, stable government of any kind for any appreciable amount of time. These gifted leaders understand the value of trust and respect over fear as a way of governing the plebeian masses. The easiest way to find favor in the eyes of the masses is to allow them the illusory freedom to “nominate” representative council members which they feel can accurately appropriate their beliefs and pseudo-self-created moral and ethical codes. Furthermore, members of this democratic system must have groups dedicated to and organized around certain value and belief systems to which they may claim membership. This act of party creation gives voters an identity to cling to and an indoctrinated framework of morals and beliefs to which they may automatically defer. If questions arise during the nomination process, nominees may fall back on their party’s ideology for answers; voters may do the same in order to find both a sense of individuality between groups and simultaneously a sense of camaraderie within their party. Of course, the true reasoning for these parties is twofold: first,to divert attention away from the actual governing group. While you, the Machiavellian Virtuoso Leader, make decisions based on your agenda, the parties interpret the news you feed them into publicly acceptable pieces of information which are now tinged with a hint of the party’s doctrine. Members of opposing parties argue over these interpretations, blame other parties, rally against one another, and attempt to balance the reins of “power” between parties to prevent an illusory dictatorship, thus allowing you to continue your personal political conquest relatively unquestioned. Secondly, the creation of parties allows the leader to control the paradigms of ideology (and thus the perpetuation of ideologies through all forms of culture and cultural institutions) by quietly nursing the correct values for parties. Parties which propose changes that are acceptable to the leader receive subtle backing to provide them more following and prevent dissent outside the acceptable range of entropy, as set by the leader; parties which propose unacceptable ideas are squelched by the lack of support and general consensus of the populace.
The creation of parties also benefits the Machiavellian leader by allowing her to filter her own ideologies and paradigms into the realm of acceptable ideas -- what is colloquially known as “common sense” -- for the population. This practice is know as hegemony, and is undeniably necessary for the creation and survival of a healthy society (hegemony is the machine which prevents dissenting parties from forming, when executed properly). Through subtle manipulation, leaders may shift hegemonic ideas and practices in the form of cultural norms, taboos, and logic. This process may be carried out in several ways. First, the leader may choose members for nomination who are in harmony with the proper values needed to further the ideologies she espouses by presenting certain charismatic members of the middle upper class proletariat as suitable candidates for nomination (an act derisively called “planting confederates” by anarchists, but better known as “selective presentation”), or, second, by a more direct method of selection depending on electoral colleges: groups created to elect in the best interests of the generally politically uneducated populace. These electoral colleges choose their representatives based on the goals of the party which, as discussed earlier, prevents new “leaders” within the democratic system from straying too far outside the acceptable boundaries of the party’s beliefs. Party members who stray outside the belief system are outcast and ostracized by society -- this is a necessary evil which must be carried out to prevent new ideas from taking root and creating upheavals. The third and most dangerous option for the leader is to allow the democracy to elect officials, then nurture the eager candidates into the proper beliefs. This practice is highly dangerous, as it allows a grain of individuality into the mix -- a grain which, though small, may sprout roots in the proper conditions and, with its disastrous growth, splinter the once-stable foundations of government like tree roots erupting through and sabotaging meticulously laid patches of concrete.
Much painstaking work by Machiavellian leaders has gone into amassing incredible knowledge of the ways into people’s hearts and precisely how to collect the respect of the moderately informed, a point which speaks distinctively to their credit. That, however, is not the true mark of governing genius, but rather of a well-educated sociologist or psychologist. The true medallion of honor in usage of their highly-tuned sense for the human condition is the creation of systems of power and ideological apparatuses which can perpetuate her personal ideologies and codes of ethics. A leader must not only understand the writings and beliefs of Niccolo Machiavelli, but also the writings and philosophy of Louis Althusser and his protégé Michel Foucault. Without writing an entire explanation of these philosophies (which could, admittedly, require far more time than should be acceptable for any busy leader desperate for protection from uprisings) the true essence of the idea is lost somewhat. What is presented, however, should be enough to allow any intelligent government leader to introduce the necessary apparatuses for a well-functioning societal and cultural system.
Systems of ideology, called ideological apparatuses, work not only to perpetuate the leader’s specified ideologies, but also to perpetuate themselves, making them the perfect addition to any busy leader’s repertoire of governing techniques: like cacti, they require only seeding, natural conditions (which are abundant) and a modicum of intervention to nurture them healthily. Ideological apparatuses function by installing ideologies into the cultural institutions that society itself desires and perpetuates almost instinctively! Concepts such as respect, honor, and dignity can be plugged into any institution (such as the military, religious groups, the concept and realization of the family unit, systems of education, labor, and even the cultural artifacts like literature and the visual arts) and consistently propagate. Noticeably, many of the institutions complement one another or even work to create and continue one another: the system of religion creates the family unit, which recreates the need for religion as a desire for understanding of the unknown; from the ideological concept of “success,” families educate their children at schools (which further indoctrinate the importance of success, religion, family, and other ideas) and prepare for the work force. The work force rewards those who excel at continuing the cycle by rewarding hard work, dedication, and initiative -- ideologies which are in turn recycled back into the other institutions and perpetuate indefinitely. A leader can at any time shift this by the use of power.
“Power” in this sense correlates with expertise and accountability. Only those who are experts in a given field may define abstract concepts such as “lawful acts” and “unlawful acts,” “sanity” and “insanity,” or “normal” and “taboo.” By limiting the methods in which a person may come into power, leaders create a way to ensure that the correct evolutions of ideology occur with minor tweaking and influence. For example, the construct of “sanity” and its inverse “insanity” are created by the knowing collective group of experts in the field of psychology. Only those who are trained masterfully in this field may contribute their ideas to the discourse which defines the otherwise abstract and arbitrary concept of “sanity.” Those without training are unable to give input into the discourse, as their ideas are dismissed by the majority in power; this dismissal can occur in two ways. First, it can be a simple negative response: the person’s idea dies at the doorstep, barely heard. The other dismissal, which aids the perpetuation of power systems and ideologies, is in labeling the new idea as part of the inverse. Those who are labeled “insane” may not participate in a discourse designed to define the quality of “sanity.” To allow someone who has demonstrated actions, beliefs, or other misconducts that are contrary to a construct (like law or sanity) into the discourse is pure madness; the power systems know this, and instinctively repel any dissent by casting cultural stigmas onto the dissenters. The same holds true in all forms of ideological discourse: the “lawless” are unable to define what should and should not be a law, because “common sense” (that hegemonic wizard!) says that a criminal would only try to make crimes legal; someone who acts in a taboo way would be trying to soil the moral fabric of the society; and someone who is insane would have a skewed understanding of reality and be thus unable to truly define normative experience.
One may ask herself: “what of new generations? Could they not break out of this cycle with only minimal radical intervention?”, and she should not fear: these plans have failsafes installed. The process of interpellation demands of humans that they subject themselves to an ideology in order to find identity and, ultimately, purpose. To be interpellated is to be called out to (“hey you!”) and acknowledge the calling (“this is me”). The interpellated party becomes the subject, and is subjected to the essence of that to which they identify: “hey you, Joe” subjects an individual to the arbitrary name “Joe,” while “hey you, capitalist” subjects him to the arbitrary ideal of capitalism. Even if the subjection is incorrect -- a person named Robert instead of Joe, or a socialist instead of capitalist -- then the effect still occurs! The interpellated party identifies (and subjects himself to) the concept of “Robert” or “socialism” in defining himself as different from “Joe” and “capitalism.” Because of the demands of a identity in the human mind, individuals and groups are deeply ingrained to find ways to define themselves: they find and accept a social role, such as being female, white, and upper-middle class. In this way, they are always interpellated while simultaneously already interpellated: that is, they are the always-already.
The second lesson should be completely clear at this point: any intelligent and poised leader knows to let human nature do the work for her. These systems of natural order which humans apply to themselves with frightening ease perpetuate themselves, yet are easily malleable to those in the know (i.e., you, Machiavellian-Structuralist Leader). One can be simply implanted into a culture and it will not only grow and thrive on its own with minimal interference, but also create the other two out of necessity and nature, leaving you time to further your agenda while your people are distracted by the meanings of their everyday lives. This second lesson extends into the third lesson in an important way.
The third and final lesson explains the easiest way to cleanly quash any rebellions which may arise from dissent among the ranks, and combines neatly with the second lesson: let the people do the work. Any revolutionary will need numbers to execute any uprising: without popular backing, a political coup is a fool’s errand at best and a suicide mission at worst. Preventing upheavals from gaining steam and gathering support does not require much in the way of work beyond installing the proper values into a system. Once this simple but critical piece is in place, the remainder of the puzzle practically solves itself. The people, empowered by their illusion of intelligence and common sense, will dismiss politically radical views and attempts in the same way a sheep will dismiss a dandelion; they will pay it no heed, give it no support, and let it die as it is trampled beneath normal cultural activity. Leaders of uprisings can be swayed by their peers to feel remorse or guilt for holding their own opinions or believing themselves to be correct and the ruling party in the wrong. They will slink back to their homes, defeated, grumbling about the unfairness of it all, but will abandon their radical ideas in favor of demurring to the common good so as to not send more waves through their circle of friends that has reprimanded them for their foolish ways.
With so many tools at her disposal, a governmental leader is free to do anything she wants and to change the beliefs of her governed people, so long as she has willing participants, which are fortunately in great excess. The leader benefits from those expecting to be in leadership positions in their community because of their absolute and unbending desire to please so as to further their own careers, however cosmically pointless they may be. This realization never crosses the minds of these potential puppets, of course, simply because their own illusions of greatness have blinded them into attending boot camps, councils, meetings, and seminars, reading pamphlets, textbooks, and articles on arbitrary ways to empower their resumés. The leader need not worry about them, however, as all they know and understand is how to perpetuate the system of government in which they reside, and possess no true threat.
It is with great hope that this essay comes to a close: great hope for the future of our fair autarchy, led by our striking, mercenary, and Machiavellian leader, may her reign be blest and afflicted with only the greatest of minds suited for her control; hope for our pugnacious and desirable government’s well-deserved lifespan; and for the hope of our free, logical reasoners who humbly offer our services to our modestly informed rulers.
No comments:
Post a Comment