The Worst Tyranny?

The Neo Nazis who describe themselves as ‘the progressive left’ or ‘progressive liberals’ seem to think they have a divine right to hurl abuse at anyone who disagrees with them.

“Divine right, Ian, but aren’t they all militant atheists?” You might well ask.

They might reject the God of Abraham (but then so do I and I despise the bastards) but they have turned socialism into a religion, with dogma, creed, a sort of catechism (immigration is good, homosexuality must be praised, science is infallible etc.) And like the tyrants of the medieval Catholic Church, their overweening self – righteousness leads them to assume follower of their faith and its various cults e.g. The Fabian Society) are qualified to instruct the rest of us on how we should organise our lives and what thoughts and attitudes are acceptbable.

Here’s a though on that from one of the twentieth century’s leading libertarian thinkers:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis

You’d be surprised (or maybe if you are reading this blog you wouldn’t) how many of the leading left wing intellectuals who are or were members of the Fabian Society have gone of record as saying democracy was obstructive to the socialist agenda and only a benign dictatorship controlled by the financial, commercial and academic elite can solve the world’s problems.

Read more >>>
and more >>>

Germany Opens Gates, Welcomes ALL Syrian Asylum Seekers: Urges UK To Do The Same

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “The Worst Tyranny?”

  1. JohnKnight Says:


    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”

    That’s perhaps the second worst sort it seems to me . . the worst being a tyranny insincerely exercised for the good of it’s victims, as in one run by true “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.

    I don’t believe the “sincere” sort of tyrant actually gets approval from their conscience when they inflict cruelty, just an outcry muffled by rationalizations and self deceit, etc.

    When the real “wolves” inflict cruelty they get silence from that part of their intelligence systems. And the rationalizing of that silence itself becomes important, leading to the virtually inevitable conclusion that such a “voice” is a defect (in Evolution religion lingo; A vestigial organ of sorts which the real “wolves” have evolved beyond).

    Hence, we get the tyrant who imagines they are ridding the world of a useless encumbrance, by attacking the conscience of fully functioning humans, and the humans who will not agree it is a defect. (As in, those who see psychopathy as a defect)

    Such wolves are not sincere because sincerity is a meaningless term/concept to them (beyond a set of signals they learn to imitate/display in order to trick gullible “sheep” who think everyone has a conscience). They are not actually trying to do good in any meaningful sense I don’t believe, but just trying to maintain their narcissistic buzz . . and that appetite can never be satiated.

    (I don’t mean to imply that all psychopaths are incapable of seeing themselves as defective. I think some figure it out so to speak, and come to accept that regardless of their own lack of conscience, they are better off in a world of people who mostly have that peculiar voice nagging at them ; )

    • ianrthorpe Says:

      I think the real problem with tyrants and their followers is self – righteousness. This extends right down from the man signing the death warrants (or executive orders authorizing drone strike) to the rank and file.

      One of the rank and file cultural Marxist’s most spurious arguments in the same sex marriage debate is to ask those expressing a traditionalist opinion, “How does it hurt you if two guys or two women want to marry.” Not only is it illiberal and intolerant to argue that we are only allowed an opinion if things affect us personally, it also ignores the fact that most people are happy with the traditional view of marriage, and the change which does not only apply to same sex couples, while it might not affect us personally it has profound constitutional and legal implications for society as a whole.

      So to me all tyants are the same and all seem able to justify their atrocities to themselves by claiming sincerely what they do is in the interests of the nation.

  2. JohnKnight Says:


    “So to me all tyrants are the same and all seem able to justify their atrocities to themselves by claiming sincerely what they do is in the interests of the nation.”

    I think there is a sort of “natural” tendency to conflate the situation those merely ensnared in psychopathy face, with what the actual psychopath(s) ensnaring them faces.

    There is no such “need” to justify atrocities in the true psychopath . . their own benefit/security is the only real concern they can actually experience directly.

    If, for instance, it were to become necessary in such a person’s mind to totally obliterate the entire nation they claim to be concerned about, in order to avoid being severely harmed themselves, that is all the justification they “need”.

    In trying to grasp what the true psychopath experiences, I think it is helpful to consider how one approaches something like a game of chess. One does not have any concern for the “well being” of the chess pieces they “lead”, but just the leader. Sacrificing a piece to gain an advantage in the game is done without any “conscience” at all. Indeed, having a conscience in regard to the fate of any pieces would be a distinct disadvantage.

    The true psychopath is like the “uncaring” chess player, I am pretty certain, and everyone else is like the chess pieces to them, experientially. Our suffering is not their suffering in any tangible sense. Therefor they have a distinct advantage in “games” like politics, war, business, law, academia, religion, bureaucracy, propaganda, etc., etc.

    If something like the current “gay rights movement” is just a move in a game some elite psychopaths are playing, executed “insincerely” to gain advantage over those who actually care about things like justice and the welfare of others, then the more discord and damage done by the move, the better.

    And the more people ensnared by their insincere psychopathic “causes”, the better. Not because the “uncaring” player thinks it will do those folks who get caught up in the psychopathy any good, but simply because it will do the player himself some good.

    Again, this is not to say I think all psychopaths are incapable of realizing that it is in their own interest to live in a world of mostly people who actually feel discomfort when others suffer. I think that realization is very unlikely to happen in those who have great wealth and power, but obviously that is not what many psychopaths experience in life.

    I saw this video a few months ago, which I hope will help with getting a feel for how psychopaths experience their reality, and how they can (apparently) sometimes “change” the way they play the game, so to speak.

    (PS, It seems to me that self-righteousness has been taken off the table, so to speak, by you ; )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: