a reply to: JAGStorm
Yes, it most certainly does.
Lets be clear here. Early indicators of the quality of a persons character, are a boon to anyone constructing a psychological profile of an
individual. While it is true that psychological profiles can be constructed in their absence, using data which is gleaned from their current
behaviours, having a full working history of a persons record of behaviour is like having a Rosetta stone for their archetype as a person.
Early indicators of sadistic, exploitative, and demonstrably amoral behaviour, during a persons formative experiences, and indeed throughout their
lives, can be incredibly instructive as to the actual implications of a persons current activities, statements and motivations.
Integrity is not something one can possess, if one also possesses traits which the layperson would refer to, in the absence of context, as evil.
Compassionate, decent, moral people, do not have psychological histories in which they express a perverted understanding of right and wrong beyond a
certain age. The people you can trust to do as they say they will do, and moreover, say they will do the right things, for the right reasons when it
counts, do not have histories which indicate that they have ever caused a person to suffer unnecessarily, nor do they have a history of recounting
with any glee or satisfaction, instances where they inflicted themselves on others against their will, in a negative way.
Its simply impossible for a person who grows up expressing either that they have no understanding of right or wrong, or worse, that they know the
difference and simply prefer the latter in the main, to arrive all of a sudden at a stage in life where they become someone you can trust, someone you
can depend on, someone whose morality, ethics and therefore their political aspirations can be said to be solid and above board. It IS possible for a
young person to be caught up in circumstances beyond their control or understanding, and have a poor history which they eventually shake off, with the
help of therapists and a community that cares for them, but that is all part and parcel of growth, and the psychological and behavioural history of
Those who seek public office must either not be the sort of people who expressed sadistic or otherwise criminal tendencies in their youth and early
adulthood, or must be persons who, while having a troubled upbringing, sought out and engaged with the necessary assistance to correct themselves, not
out of fear of ramifications for themselves and their career pathways being limited by their malevolent tendencies, but out of a wish to not only be
healed from the trauma that set them off down the wrong path, but ultimately be well enough to help others who find themselves in similarly dire
It is important to understand also, that if one seeks a strong leadership, but elects those who have fragile egos, compound insecurities about their
bodies, their intelligence, and are therefore willing to gleefully absorb any propaganda that seeks to scapegoat everyone else in the world, rather
than deal with their own total corruption and toxicity, then what you get is literally the opposite of what you claim to be after. The two things are
not like unto one another. Strength of character is not expressed when a person exerts power on others. The strong do not desire power, they do not
covet it, nor guard it closely. The strong do not require to bolster their own capacity with artificial additions derived from systems of governance
or law, nor from their positions within those structures. A strong person, a mentally and spiritually solid individual does not require or seek
validation of that nature from their fellow human beings. They get on with whatever they are doing, without fanfare, without spending over much time
in self edification, preferring to dedicate their time and effort to the tasks before them, rather than self promoting to the point of banality. They
do not have to lie in order to draw people to their side on a matter, because strong people know that you cannot and should not achieve anything by
falsehood, that ought to be achieved with truth and evenhandedness.
That strength comes from a combination of factors, but without doubt the most important of them is how they grew up, what they did during that time
and their early adulthood. No one who was ever a bully at school has ever turned out to be a genuinely strong person. They may have abs to die for and
thighs that could crush a Harley Davidson flat, but in terms of strength of character, they were, and having stunted their own development with sadism
and tyranny, will remain for all time, weak of character, lacking decency, morality or any ethical understanding at all. The best of these people
spend their lives trying to pull away from that darkness of intent, the worst merely give into it. Its not to say that these people cannot be
successful, in fact the very traits that make for a successful businessperson, ruthlessness, sadistic enjoyment of the suffering and conquest of
others, these things are defined by many of the worlds top flight business leaders and captains of industry, as the very stuff of which success is
made in business.
But it makes for a lousy human being, and lousy human beings, make appallingly lousy leaders, especially in nations which have any pretense at all,
toward being "free" places, where citizens are possessed of anything even laughingly referred to as liberty.
Now, let me make something else clear. If someone was photographed once at a KKK rally, or a meeting, without being there to protest the existence of
the KKK, regardless of what year it was when the photograph was taken, then guess what? They should be disqualified from holding office, for the rest
of time. The people who should lead nations NOW, are those who did not need telling that racism and membership of white supremacist groups, or
tolerance of their existence was unacceptable, THEN. Its pretty simple really. If a person ever thought that the KKK or any group like them were
harmless, believed for one second that the constitution protects and offers a person the right to treat others differently based on their race, creed,
colour, sexuality, or any other damned thing, then guess what? They should not be leading a nation now.
The ONLY people who should be leading nations, or states, or parts thereof, in this day and age, are people who are so much more advanced than to
EVER be caught up in that mess, or anything like it, that they might as well be in a completely different subcategory of evolution, quite frankly, to
those who did. Put simply, if a person has ever been taken in by white supremacy, or anything that even bares structural similarity to it, they ought
by rights to be disqualified from adopting any position other than that of life long, abject apology and atonement, such that they would never DARE to
attempt to take charge of anything, knowing that despite the fact that all people are in some way flawed, there is flawed, and then there is
dangerously and all to easily corrupted, and that they, being the latter, have nothing to add or contribute of merit.
This goes for a whole host of misdeeds that a person might have engaged in during their life. I just use those examples because they are stark and
easy to contemplate without murk in the water of thought.