There is a popular belief that satisfied and content people are more difficult to govern. The idea is that if everyone is satisfied financially, sexually, and in their basic needs of survival, then all is lost.
But who decided this?
Most likely someone who has never tried to think otherwise due to underlying fears. Fear of the unknown prevents people from fantasizing and imagining what it would be like if most people were content with life (including their romantic lives). Wouldn’t it make them too relaxed, too stupefied, make them go crazy, break bad, and become belligerent simply out of nothing to do?
I have an objection to this assumption. Fortunately, every country in the world has laws, the violation of which can cause anyone to knowingly and intentionally screw up his or her own life. I don’t think the gene for masochism is so strongly represented in the Homo sapiens gene pool. The “suicidal moths” of our society, who fly into the fire even though everything is fine and dandy in their lives, are rare exceptions. In the end, laws can be tightened if these “overly content” people can’t live peacefully in their immense “enclosures” with plenty of food, sex, and roofs over their heads.
Of course, this fear was originally instilled in people by those who are POWER and, frankly, SICK IN THE HEAD – the “elites” of the world whose goal is to manipulate the masses in order to satisfy their unhealthy ambitions. It costs them nothing to suggest to entire nations that it is necessary to degrade people of color, to annihilate Jews, and to make people question their sexual orientation or their biological gender.
Thus, how hard could it be to make people firmly believe that satisfied and content citizens are difficult to govern? The more colossal the lie, the harder it is to believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” as Hitler dictated in his book Mein Kampf. His PR manager, Joseph Goebbels, who transcribed the book at Hitler’s direction, was quite fond of repeating this sentiment.
A similar horror story is often perpetuated – the warning that it is also impossible to govern people who know and understand too much.
Again, I object. Whoever came up with this must have confused humans with horses, which are easier to control when they have blinders covering the sides of their eyes. First of all, horses are far less conscious than humans, as any sensible biologist will attest (no offence meant towards these beautiful animals). And secondly, horses don’t have legislation outlining criminal and other penalties if they start fooling around, causing trouble, instigating riots, etc. against a background of OBJECTIVE general welfare. If granted the gift of consciousness, the awareness of their legal restraints, a decent remuneration, and a newfound respect for themselves, horses would work just fine without any blinders over their eyes. They wouldn’t throw any riders off their back or gallop when not asked to, since they would run the risk of being punished.
THE FOLLOWING IS VERY IMPORTANT! The villain who coined the phrase “It is impossible to control knowledgeable and educated people” deliberately concealed the ending of this saying. Had he not done so, the saying would have sounded something like this: “It is impossible to control knowledgeable and educated people FOR MY EVIL INTENTIONS.” This phrase, which has burrowed into the back of everyone’s mind as a given, always stops at the word “people” and very few people consider its true meaning.
All the revolutions and related turmoil of the world happened because people were OBJECTIVELY dissatisfied with something (serfdom, low income, oppression, etc.) and I’m more than sure that this or that dissatisfaction has always been exacerbated by one other thing – a lack of sex. It was always there, though it is not customary to talk about it, as if we were sexless creatures who reproduce via cabbage patch and stork.
Yet another horror story that is perpetuated in society is one that makes people assume that satisfied people will have nothing to strive for and will cease to be creative, artistic, and inventive. What kind of artist would a person be, what sort of creator of masterpieces, if a woman’s lack of affection didn’t make his balls turn blue from a lack of sex?
It’s as if no “I remember a wonderful moment…” would have spilled out of Pushkin’s pen if Anna Petrovna Kern had put out immediately after their first date. Won’t people become too lazy if they have “all the nice things”?
And for the millionth time, I object. History does not deal with “could have, should have, may have, would have been”.
We have no way of knowing what would have come out of Pushkin’s pen if there was no sexual prejudice in his life and no subsequent sexual greed it generally provokes in men towards UNfamiliar women. We have never lived in that paradigm, in that reality, where satisfying sexual needs is as easy as satisfying the need for food. At the same time, we must make sure sure that sex is not reduced to something mundane, devoid of mystery, passion, fidelity, love, marriage, and family, which is what everyone is so afraid of when they start to fantasize about the new reality that I propose.
Such “dreamers” remind me of Chekhov’s “Man in the Case”: “It is all right, of course; it is all very nice, but I fear it won’t lead to anything!”…
It’s particularly helpless and ridiculous for every single one of these dreamers when each has two divorces under their belt, and both are with abusers who despise women for having had to beg them for sex all their lives, or, fine – “fight for them” as it is customary to say. Neither of these abusers would ever admit that there was any such problem at all, let alone that it had always burdened them, hurt their self-esteem and drained their energy, and that it was for this reason that they had taken it out on their long-term partners.
It’s equally hopeless when such dreamers try to get sex by hook or by crook in a sea of women that are trying by hook or by crook to get a serious relationship in a sea of men, simultaneously eluding sex in order not to “spoil” their “image,” as public prejudice dictates.
At the same time, the “sex miner” drinks, or takes drugs, or plays computer games all day long, or destroys himself at the gym, thus trying to escape from the reality in which he has an acute shortage of the female touch. And he is sick and tired of that reality to the core.
Millions of men can’t even admit this fact to themselves and those who do confess spurt something out along the lines of: “Vlad, come on. If sex didn’t come with hurdles, it would no longer be interesting.”
In my book “The War of the Sexes,” I have very thoroughly exposed the problem of mismatched deficits and needs between men and women, thanks to the suppression of the female right to libido (that is, each gender has different deficits on average and, accordingly, different priorities). Under such conditions, it is too naïve to expect kindness and understanding between men and women.
Until these conditions start to change in the direction of a “warmer climate” between the genders, the belief that it is easier for the government to deal with discontent people will continue to have a hold over the general population.