Saturday, 11 May 2013

Appealing to the Masses:

Appealing to the masses/herd to actualise political or social change (or single person with a herd-like mindset/mentality) assumes that the masses have both will-power and rational/critical faculties in the first place.  The masses have neither of these things.  If they did have these things then they would cease to be the masses. 

Now, to actualise any kind of change (either personal change or group change) one needs will power, because the masses don't have any will power then there's no point appealing to them, because they'll never get anything done.  It's like speaking to a lump of clay and trying to reason with it, implore that it would be in it's interest to shape itself into a clay pot.  It ain't gonna happen.

Lyndon Larouche and Alexander Dugin have both learnt this lesson.  Early in their careers they tried to be 'political agitators', formed groups, wrote books and tried to 'summon up' the will of the masses into actually doing something.  But they must've found out that it didn't work, because they ended up changing their methodology after a number of years.  Larouche attached himself to the Catholic Church and began getting lots of funding from private high ranking individuals; and Dugin began to fraternise with Putin and his circle of friends.  Putin.  Vladimir Putin.  One of the leaders of the G8, who leads one of the greatest nations on planet Earth.  Putin does not equal the masses.  If you want to exert massive political upheaval, then that's how you do it: you need to go to straight to the top.

Going to the top is how Christianity came to be so widespread: Bishops and missionaries went to rulers, the rulers, of European tribes and preached the gospel to them.  Then these rulers converted to Christianity and imposed it on their subjects - the masses.  Imposed.  I'll say it again: imposed.  From above.  That's how you exert massive socio-political change, by speaking to the top dog, and getting him to do the work for you.  Not by 'appealing to the masses'.

Charlemagne proclaimed war against the Saxons, announcing his resolve to subdue and convert them. (

Contrast that with the method that Christian-preacher David Livingstone used.  David Livingstone tried to convert Africans to Christ for several years by preaching the Gospel and using reason.  After those years, how many converts did he win?  One.  Just one.  That's where 'appealing to the masses' gets you.  One convert for several years work.  Not exactly effective.  Not exactly worthwhile.

If you, personally, are interested in changing men's lives on a mass-group (e.g. societal) level, then take the missionaries approach and go to the leader of the society and deal with them on a one-to-one basis; or better still, become the leader of a mass-group and impose your will directly on to the group, onto the masses.



  1. become the leader of a mass-group and impose your will directly on to the group

    That's a very evocative idea.

    Become a leader of a group - and there are various different methods for that goal, to be used in different circumstances.

    To become the leader of a hunting-pack is different than to become the Dean of a university department.

    Starting an underground weight-lifting gym is very different than starting a local organic food co-op.

    Different kinds of leadership are needed - but I think we can generalize and say that all leadership requires some kind of virtue.

  2. The term 'impose' may have been a little strong. I suppose 'impress upon' might be more accurate. And you're right about needing different styles of leadership, I was thinking more along the lines of large groups with a definite hierarchy (like a multi-national corporation) rather than small ones (like a carp fishing club). Multinationals use lobbyists in the same way that the Catholic Church used missionaries: they both went to the top man (the president of the USA or the King of the Saxons) and convinced/persuaded him to change his belief.