P. Edronkin

Leaders of Expansion (III).

Best Sellers

Adventure Gear


Cosmic Cat - A cosmic, free game

Free American Roulette

Free European Roulette

3 Card Poker Gold, Free

Free Blackjack

Green Energy

Free games

Sports info and betting

Independent funding for a free lifestyle
When a group, organisation or society reaches such a point, where there is a general consent about the fact that some sort of management for all is necessary, but when no real statesmanship has evolved yet due to the fact that leaders have been rejected by one group - the aristocrats - and risk being rejected by the other, three things can occur: the group's status goes backwards, and then the rule of the strongest begins to apply again; the group stagnates, until a new sort of agreement is achieved, or the group evolves somehow.

This fallacy of ostensible policies is found in many an alleged democracy; in many an alleged rational organisation and in a lot of informal groups.

Since some words sound nicer than others, they are used in various ways and given different subjective or cover meanings while ostensibly they remain universally acceptable in quite a different way.

This means that albeit democracy is good, and giving everyone equal opportunities to start and develop personal growth, management should always be left to the intellectuals, and when there is a lack of them, they have to be created.

However, the problems of any evolving leadership system do not end there. Leaders, once they become intellectual, will tend to become part of the aristocracy; this is a fact, but the surge of intellect among natural leaders is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success.

It is necessary because of what has been demonstrated above, but it is not sufficient because pure aristocracies are fallacious. Plato's Republic comes to mind.

Aristocracies cannot rule effectively by themselves, and aristocratic leaders loose their connection with the group that they intend to govern sooner or later.

Stagnation is a malady both from organisations ruled by brutes as well as refined aristocrats, and it is like a fever that develops and stays with the organism until one of the opposing forces wins decisively over the other.

Stagnant societies, groups and organisations are thus risky, unstable and present superb opportunities for growth as well, and really good leaders who are able to see and take advantage of such opportunities will certainly make a mark in history.

Such societies find themselves with the need to evolve. The longer they stay within such an impasse, the harder the way out will be.

In order to guarantee a reasonable rate of growth, but at the same time, prevent such an aristocracy from becoming stagnant as it has been demonstrated over and over again regarding Plato's ideas, intellectual leaders must be contained and restrained by some sort of social compromises in order to make them administer even for those who they might despise.

It is quite a common fact that intellectuals despise those less cultivated than themselves. It has also been proved above that brutes tend to produce awful results as leaders and even members of a given organisation. However, ignoramii will tend to stay so by their own inertia, but they will reproduce.

This means that in any organisation, such individuals will proliferate. If they reproduce with a higher rate than more capable members, then even the best aristocracy will evolve back into a slum.

Moreover, even among the most refined people and the best social system, if rules become more important than facts, and the required steps for anyone to improve its position within the group tend to become more an administrative business that real and unique achievements, then such a system will again begin to stagnate.

The Search Engine for Exploration, Survival and Adventure Lovers - Andinia.com