How can those who force massive changes in human history lack a fundamental connection to other human beings? From Stalin to Zuckerberg, we find ambitious men who move people, but can’t relate to individual persons. Bill Whittle and Alfonzo Rachel explore the difference between tyrants and true leaders in a single word…humanity.
The Virtue Signal comes to you free twice weekly thanks to our Members who pay as little as $9.95/month to ensure these ideas get wide distribution. Members also unlock exclusive access to a fellowship of committed patriots. Try it for 30 days, and if you don’t love meeting your new friends, send us a note and we’ll cheerfully refund your money. Just click the big green button above.
6 replies on “Humanity: History Movers (from Stalin to Zuckerberg) Lack Connection to Others as Human Beings”
All of the Leftist philosophies are just religions for people who think that they’re too smart for religion.
The big difference is that Leftists think that people who believe in God unseen are naive, while believing in philosophies with a track record of failure (or worse), such as Socialism, Communism, Climastrology, The Cult of Obama, etc. somehow makes them geniuses
I was thinking about how Biden’s nomination was supported by, approved and pushed for nomination by Jim Clyburn. Clyburn, a democrat man who imo has forever defiled himself by his hatred for his own countrymen. Clyburn bestowed unearned honor on a virtueless liar and pedophile whose main anti-American desire he must have foreseen and with which he agreed. That seems to be to destroy the foundations of our country by continually dividing us and degrading us. These individuals are forever trying to rob us of our happiness, freedom and worth as individuals.
Men and women who rant about the abuses of slavery are themselves eagerly pursuing slavery (!) for the rest of us.
Whether black, brown, white or other, men and women of evil means and intent are holding the reins of power. Yes, they do see themselves as aristocrats. They feel no need to change their actions, to reflect on the consequences of them or to apologize for their tyranny. They are devoid of virtue of any kind. They are vile Godless men and women .Good men and women must guard against them and actively keep them from being successful.
Scott Adams talks about the inability to understand what actually motivates other human beings. They have mechanistic (serotonin, dopamine, adrenaline) view of other people. Not themselves, of course. They are above all of that.
Most of us never face a real test of our humanity. It’s what you do when you can do it that counts. It doesn’t matter if it’s turning a blind eye to suffering, holding your fire in a combat zone to be as certain as you can that you’re not firing on non-combatants, or wielding the power of a megatech corporation that comes with billions of dollars in influence.
A real test is a rare thing in America. Few people will ever witness genuine hardship up close and personal. A relatively small percentage will do military service in a combat zone and an even smaller percentage of them will actually come face-to-face with a crucial decision. A tiny minority of Americans will ever rise so high in commerce to be in a place of world changing influence.
There’s a difference between Joe Stalin and Mark Zuckerberg. Joe was a seeker after power for power’s sake. Mark was a geek kid wanting to cash in and make money on his programming skills. One was power hungry from the start and one discovered his taste for power as a result of circumstances. With Joe the thirst for power was manifest in his climb to the top of a brutal system and with Mark the thirst for power was discovered when it became available to him.
These are things most of us will never face. If Joe had been thwarted early on in his quest for power we would never have heard of him. If Mark hadn’t beaten out MySpace for social networking software he would have been relegated to the dustbin of history. How many of you even remember the names of the creators of MySpace? Their names are Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe and if MySpace had won the social networking race might things have turned out differently?
It’s easy to say “I wouldn’t have done that” thing that turned out to deny the humanity of others but until you actually face it as something that you can do you really don’t know how you’ll handle it.
This does not excuse inhumanity in any way. It’s just a good idea to never forget that you should be grateful if you haven’t been called to make the choice.
Just like everything else in our society the question of whether or not someone makes the wrong choice is directly tied to accountability. The trooper that doesn’t kill innocents may be the most humane person in the military … Or he may make that choice based on the risk that he’ll be found out and court martialed for it … Or it may be a combination of the two in varying proportions. However you look at it, accountability is a major factor.
Our Constitution stands to safeguard our own unalienable rights. It doesn’t matter if those rights are compromised by an elected official, a permanent member of the Deep State or a tech mogul. The essence lies in the compromise of our rights not the office or position of the person denying them to us.
The major difference then is that while Joe Stalin might have risen beyond accountability, Mark Zuckerberg certainly has not. Yet. Mark Zuckerberg and all like him must be held to account for their inhumanity if we are to retain our rights.
A related test, but not as consequential, is to see how a person acts when they think no one is watching or that they can get away with it. It is a true test of character. It is also evident in those people who think they can say anything on the Internet, especially things they would never have the nerve to say in person.
That’s interesting and broaches a couple topics I’d love to discuss.
How someone acts when no one is watching isn’t really a test of their humanity, it’s more of a test of character. A test of humanity would always involve, well, another human. I think, your mileage may differ.
As for —
That might apply, being as another human is involved. It’s also a function of several other factors too. Not the least of which is the lack of all the other non-verbal means of communication that humans employ unconsciously or subconsciously when face-to-face.
Much depends on the “voice” with which you read things in your head. If that voice is sarcastic and critical something more innocuous or just a friendly dig might come across as hostile and offensive if read that way. Whereas if you read it with a wry smile it comes across totally different.
This is a problem I encounter often because I’m writing with a wry smile and I’m read as hostile and offensive. So it’s a topic I’m quite familiar with. Being familiar with this I also take it into account when it’s clear someone has a chip on their shoulder. A chip that probably wouldn’t manifest if we were speaking face-to-face.
Then again, I am absolutely intentionally hostile and offensive to some people. “Nerve” is a thing I do not lack by any means. I’ve done a lot of things that take more “nerve” than most people will ever need to muster. The result is I have a very aggressive personality and I don’t pull punches when I see a (verbal) punch is what’s called for. I do that in text over the internet exactly as I would if I were speaking face-to-face with someone. I have no “political correctness” filter at all, in either case. If I find someone to be stupid, duplicitous, disingenuous, or otherwise deserving then I give them exactly what they deserve no matter what means of communication is being used.
I’ve done this my whole life. It’s not a thing that’s likely to change. More than once someone has taken umbrage and thought what I deserved for that was a punch in the nose. That’s fine too, it’s never something that would stop me from speaking my mind. I don’t physically aggress in real life but I’m more than capable of defending myself if someone wants to take it to that level. So I say what I really think and if that’s a problem then it is. So be it, I’ll never be the one to throw the first punch because that’s a whole different level of communication but it is not a level of communication I’m any more inept with than I am speech or the written word.
I consider my attitude in this regard to be one of honesty. I am very bad at “going along to get along” so I don’t even try.
My point is not to come across here as some sort of “internet tough guy”. I’m not that either. I’m just not timid and I’m not a particularly nice person. My history makes me a lot unlike most people and the standard that applies to your local neighborhood grocery clerk doesn’t apply to me. I can be nice and I enjoy doing that but I’m only nice to the deserving.
You can take this however you want to and no matter what I say, you’ll do that anyway. Being as we will never meet in person there’s nothing I can do about that.
No one who knows me would misunderstand me or what I say because … They know me. Hours and hours of conversation face-to-face are needed for that. If you read this big long reply to what you’ve said it should take you about 3 minutes or so. Think about how little that is compared to someone I’ve known and talked to for years. Just a single hour of personal conversation will contain an order of magnitude more information conveyed in many ways than we’re ever going to experience between us.
Thus some people think I’m saying things I would not say in a personal, real life, face-to-face conversation and at least in my case that’s just not so. If I say it here, I’ll say it anywhere else too. Though there’s no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of keyboard warriors who do just what you said. Just because they exist does not make me one of them.