"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are,
ipso facto, those least suited to do it...
anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
should on no account be allowed to do the job. "
I stop and I consider the names that I know of leaders long past. I am disturbed to say the least. Alexander the Great comes to mind first- who historians conservatively estimate orchestrated the deaths of over 200,000 people. Next I think of Julius Caesar, then Adolf Hitler, then Josef Stalin, then finally I think of Gandhi- but he never held public office. Then I think of Abraham Lincoln, who I think is a positive leader, but who was definitely instrumental in the deaths of more Americans than any leader until those Presidents who presided over World War II.
"The young Alexander conquered India. Was he alone? Caesar beat the Gauls. Did he not even have a cook with him? Philip of Spain wept when his armada Went down. Was he the only one to weep? Frederick the Second won the Seven Years' War. Who Else won it? Every page a victory. Who cooked the feast for the victors? Every ten years a great man. Who paid the bill?"
Should those not mentioned feel slighted or vindicated not to have been indicted with Alexander or Caesar or Philip of Spain? Should we complain that Frederick the Second stole his cook's share of the glory, or wonder at a culture and tradition that allows such sociopaths into positions of power- and then proceeds to remember them fondly?
What service do these butchers and tyrants and monsters serve to domesticated man that he continually lauds them or tolerates them or apologizes for them?
What do these men (and they are nearly all of them men) provide that is necessary to the functioning of domesticated society?
So many questions best left unanswered.
No comments:
Post a Comment