“Power creation” is not an easy job. This is why we do not see many people succeeding at it. For power creation to take place you need leaders who understand the essence and indeed the mystery of power creation. Most leaders, however, have no understanding at all of power creation, at least not authentic power creation, the real power creation.
Power creation can be simply defined as the opposite of power contraction. We find that most leaders will seek to give the illusion of conserving power, their power, but of course, this is a deception. In the guise of conserving power, their power is effectively concentrated. The strategy to conserve power (but, in reality, to concentrate power) would seem to be undertaken for two reasons: (1) fear of competition and this is expressed as either an unwillingness or inability to compete; (2) inadequate knowledge and this is expressed as leaders expose their refusal to create authentic power and instead work to concentrate their power.
There are two types of power creation: one is operating in the biological or genetic realm; the second is operating in the realm of knowledge and ideas, or culture. And of course, we cannot really separate the two. They both operate together. Both types of power creation are quite frightening for most leaders, and this is because most leaders are inept and ignorant. I refer to all leaders, whether they are head of a family or head of organisations or even a nation.
It is a historical fact that all monarchies have followed a strategy of “inbreeding” genetically, and this was done to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few. And those who occupy the next step down in the hierarchy, the upper classes and feudal landlords, did the same. The obvious consequence of this conservation of power is that the gene pool remains very small and tightly controlled. Power and privileges are only shared with few, and of course, this is quite deliberate.
We can similarly say that “outbreeding” was feared and considered a threat to the strategy of concentrating power. Concentrating power may in the short term give the illusion of being successful and creating power, but the consequences in the long term are damaging, in fact, it is a self-defeating strategy. Indeed, the more extreme the inbreeding is, the sooner we witness signs of failure. Inbreeding – concentrating power – results in total ruin.
It is clear that most leaders (in effect, dictators) work to suppress and control knowledge and the spread of knowledge. This is why Francis Bacon (1561-1626) so famously said: “knowledge is power”. The essence of human power lies in ideas and knowledge creation and in genetic outbreeding. The power of knowledge increases by cross-fertilising ideas and cross-fertilising genes. Power creation occurs through the expansion of power and not by the concentration of power.
The title of this article suggests that if we are to achieve rejuvenation and total restoration and make progress toward achieving our goals, then we must take the risk and invest in power and power creation. If we fail to do this, and we only work to concentrate power, then nature, the forces of nature, will gradually but relentlessly break down the power that we have. Power creation will not then take place. I refer to another article in RTM, which will be of interest:
The title: THE ENDURING IMPORTANCE OF THE FERTILE CRESCENT
C.D. Darlington, the famous British geneticist (1903-1981), in his book The Evolution of Man and Society (George Allen and Unwin, 1969), has further elaborated on the implications of inbreeding and outbreeding. Rejuvenation and total restoration is possible, but we will have to be mindful of the correct strategy for achieving this. The correct strategy is power creation, authentic power creation. I publish below a few pertinent paragraphs from The Evolution of Man and Society:
NEW CLASSES
“The founders of a new dynasty, whether Cyrus or the Ch’in Emperor, Augustus or William the Conqueror, have a characteristic origin. When we know where they come from we find that such men arise by outbreeding so decisive that they are bastards. Having established their conquest they endeavour to keep it within their family. That is why we find the Pharaohs and Achaemenids, Ptolemies and Caesars, early and late, Hapsburgs, all turning from outbreeding to inbreeding when they reach the top. All in tum brought down their dynasties in this way. Only the Medieval European kings were prevented from doing the same. They were prevented by the fact that there was a tribe of kings large enough to form an outbred caste whose intermarriage made for both political coherence and genetic stability.
They were also prevented by the papacy. For, when the papacy lost its strength, the most powerful of the Catholic monarchs, the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons, pursuing their immediate ends of political power, turned to the most extreme inbreeding, and ruined themselves through the defective individuals produced as a result.
Even moderate inbreeding, however, frequently endangers the survival of governing classes, not through specific defects but merely through stabilizing a type which has lost its value. Ogdai, son of Genghis Khan, chief minister, ‘Your empire was won on horseback, but you can’t rule it on horseback’. The aristocracies of Europe through inbreeding have retained an addiction to the horse, a genetic and adaptive habit which enabled their ancestors to win wars. But on more recent battlefields it has it carried them, as it carried the Mongols, headlong to disaster. The instincts of the mass are not in these cases to be overcome by the intelligence of the individual.
Consider now the position of the technical discoverer. In ancient times, although he might exceptionally become divine he was almost always anonymous. We therefore know nothing of his parents or his progeny. But we know that if he was a horse-tamer he kept his discovery to his tribe an iron-smelter he kept it, with the aid of magic, to his family. In either case, if he was successful he created a new caste; it was bound to inbreed. But if his discovery proved to be a source of wealth or power, his caste was bound to expand. The inventions of the few thus come to provide for the employment of the many. Then their inbreeding soon begins to relax and the new invention produces a new social class.
Thus the breeding system of a social group determines its success or failure. It is also in tum modified in quite different ways by that success or failure, according to the changing function of the group in the society of which it forms a part.”
