Political Power, About The Emotional Basis Of

1. Power is based on emotions
2. It is hypnotic
4. Two types of emotions
5. Counterproductive solutions
6. Effective solutions
7. Ordo ab chaos
8. The method of the python
9. What is all this about?
10. Forcing the apocalypse
11. The letters from albert pike to Giuseppe Mazzini
12. Life is energy
13. Isn't bizarre?
14. What are they doing right now?
15. Levels of the human necessities (Human Rights)
16. Toward the pathocracy
17. All this is about our education
18. What to do
19. Sources

Power Is Based On Emotions

Power is based on emotions. (Political power).

The nearest thing to this idea that you could find is the sentence of Caligula: "It doesn't matter that they hate us, as long as they fear us". He reveals that his power was based on the fear.

Michel Foucault said: "Speech is power." Of course, because it generates emotions.

In any organization, an individual of certain rank cannot take charge of all personally, he or she should delegate, to make a subordinate to make some things for him or her.

Therefore he or she order him or her to do something. But, how do he or she make the subordinate to obey him / her?.

One can think of three Answers or answer Types.

Answer 1: he or she inspires him / her an emotion that impels (moves) him / her to obey. Emotion comes from the Latin root motere, to move.

Answer 2: he or she inspires greed to him / her, he / she promises a recompense to him / her , or he or she claims gratitude to him / her for a previous gift.

Answer 3: he or she appeals to the ideology, to the honor, to the duty.

Frequently they combine these answers, like in the Politics that has been called "of the Stick (punishment) and the Carrot (reward)."

About the ideology, we are also manipulated through the lie, because we allow it when we don't value the truth above everything else, above all ideology, when we accept without questioning a "rational" explanation more ridiculous that what is sought to deny.

It is Hypnotic

We allow it when instead of reasoning, analyzing the information that emits, we prejudge their source, and, according to whether we like it or not, we accept or we reject all what it says, but without reasoning, without filtering their speech, without separating the truths from the lies in it. If we prejudge a source as "not reliable" we ignore all what it says, including the truths. If not, we accept all what it says and we ignore everything else, like in the hypnosis, we allow to that reliable source to think for us, and to tell us what to think and what to believe. Hypnosis is done when we allow our masters, self-proclaimed "reliable" sources, the only ones "serious", the only "experts", make us to ignore all what their "adversaries", the other sources, say. They do this by disqualifying to their adversaries: "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. Don't listen to them, they are extremists, they are credulous, they aren't serious, they aren't impartial, they aren't experts, they are lying, they are jokers, they are enemies, they are mad, they are bad, they are crazy, they are freaks, they are irrational, they are this, they are that, etc.". They surely can't be all that at the same time. They speak about the adversary source, not about what it says, so they pretend that we prejudge the source, not to judge what it says. The "adversary" source is attacked just because it says its truth, its reality, how it see the reality. Reality is somehow subjective, so the masters try to impose us their reality and to make us ignore other realities. As in the known game "Simon says", they pretend that we must obey all what Simon says and to ignore all what any other says. It is an hypnotic manipulation of the reality, our reality (subjective), but only if we allow it. It is our election. It is like magic, an illusion that is real if we choose it so.

Doesn't matter whether a source is "reliable" or not. Indeed, the source doesn't matter at all, never. What matters is the information what it emits. Truth never depends on the source. There is no warranty. All sources can emit a mixture of truths and lies, consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or not, deliberately or not, innocently or not. This mixture can have more or less truths than lies, but is always a mixture. By example, 500 year ago, the "experts", the reliable sources, said that the Earth is flat. That was the Paradigm in that time. What many adopted then as their "truth", now is a lie. As science advance (if we allow it), paradigms change. And vice-versa, we must allow that paradigms be improved to allow science progress. We should listen to all sources, we should be open to all them, "reliable" and "not reliable", "serious" or not, "experts" or not, and to filter what they say by our own common sense, to separate from it, from that mixture, what we choose to believe, what we adopt as truth, from what we choose to not believe, what are lies for us. No matter what, nothing is true for us until we choose it, and we choose it when it fits in our concept of reality, our mental jigsaw-puzzle, our mental map of reality, our subjective reality. We choose all, our reality, our future, our destiny, all the time. But there is a time limit and a default choice.

We allow ourselves to be deceived when we don't reason for ourselves.

To reason is to choose what to believe, it is to look for the truth, and it should be a permanent attitude. Only when one is choosing what to believe one is reasoning. When one already chose, one isn't reasoning, one has confidence (from the Latin fides, faith), having faith, in what one chose before, what one already incorporated to their mental map of the reality (subjective), their mental jigsaw-puzzle. A faith that can be so irrational whether it is deposited in a "scientific" dogma as in one religious. In the point where we are reasoning, where we are choosing what to believe (in what to have faith), in that point, the reason isn't incompatible with the faith, but complementary.

We don't reason when we dismiss too quickly the new information, without thinking, without asking us the question of gold: And if it was certain?. When new information doesn't fit in our jigsaw-puzzle because it contradicts something that we believe, something that we trust, we should solve the contradiction, either dismissing the new information, or the old one that before we believed true and now we think that it is not. Not to solve the contradiction would be Doublethink, it would be to have a divided mind, double or multiple, maintaining in it a disordered jigsaw-puzzle, or more than one, with pieces that don't coincide, contradictory ideas in order that one can appeal to one or the other according to the occasion, the convenience.

But that it is another topic.