September 2, 2020

All corruption has the same forces driving it. The only differences are created by the obstacles opposing it.

It seems strange that the most visible manifestation of corruption is always a war against the lower classes. There are obviously some mysterious forces which are more basic, because there isn't an apparent logic as to why the war against the lower classes would be occurring.

One of the more basic forces is the need to be a winner. Winning is the test for the virtues of corruption. When the promoters of corruption can be winners at promoting corruption, they get support from other persons who depend upon corruption. The only thing corrupters can do wrong by that criterion is to be a loser. So corrupters declare themselves winners at everything no matter how ridiculously they fail. They win for losing.

Positions of power allow corrupters to win for losing. In other words, to screw everything up while controlling power is to win, in the views of other corrupters. Simply to acquire power is winning. Any corruption promoted with power is winning.

So how do loser win in the most expedient manner possible? By destroying the most vulnerable persons. So corrupters fight an endless war against vulnerable persons as their test of success.

Usually, that process is viewed in terms of, what does anyone gain from it? Normal tests for gain do not apply to corrupters. In fact, corruptions are extremely self-defeating by all human criteria. But corruption is not responsive to human criteria, it is a method of coping for persons who are losers by human criteria. Corrupters are obsessed with winning as a compensation mechanism for being losers.

A lot of additional corruptions are more indirect being imposed by counter forces. When people find corruption to be intolerable, methods of imposing the corruption become necessary. Lying is a simple solution, but lies can only be imposed when they have power behind them. So mongering power is needed to impose all elements of corruption onto society.

These forces drive both fascism and Nazism. The only differences are in social situations. Germany was vulnerable to Nazism, because it ran out of political leaders who could solve the problems that resulted from WW-I. A dozen potential leaders were tried but failed. Hitler was at the bottom of the barrel. There weren't much for alternatives left when they got to Hitler. So the result was that Hitler was a personal failure from the beginning and he needed extra-ordinary methods of staying in power. So the minute he got elected, he started murdering political opponents to stay in power. That method of maintaining power is what characterized Nazism.

Otherwise, fascism is the general deterioration of social standards which always looks the same, except that small countries have a much simpler manifestation of corruption than large countries have. In small countries, corruption takes the simplest form of totalitarian dictatorship, while in large countries fascism takes the form of social upheaval with groups fighting each other for power.