When have the weak taken the lead?

It seems that all through history people look for charisma, strength, a big dick something for choosing leadership.

Now that we are a participation society are we stuck with just the weak, ill, downtrodden to lead us? Upper leadership always seems to be a nice sprinkle of wealthy useless people but now we are having a wave of people who seem to be voted in for outdoing others in their defects or differences from the perceived norm.

If you wanted to succeed in politics even in small places you were a jock, war hero, wealthy family, well educated to handle the problems at hand. You would have at least one of these things going for you.

Jebus, sweet little baby Black Jebus, like the little valentines Jebus with the bow.
What are we going to become always voting for the bottom of the barrel from this special interest group and that special interest group.

4 Likes

This is a byproduct of democratically elected leaders, ubiquitous communication, and a soft society. We’ve reached critical mass where the weak have enough bodies and are begging to not seek strong people but fellow weak people. We need someone that knows our pain and is a reflection of who we are they say.

Evolutionarily speaking we are dooming our species and there’s no way around it. We’re so largely populated that there is a social hierarchy for everyone and in it the weakest reproduce with the weakest.

People inevitably find themselves on the outside of the social hierarchies they’d like to be in. When enough people are there they create their own, a hierarchy of freaks. Now this hierarchy has the most influence in our politics, corporations, and education system because so many gutless voters are overruled by a misguided sense of compassion. I will say too, if the hierarchies found a way to knit the freaks in, sort of like how you play nice with lovable retards, the freaks wouldn’t be seeking to cast off millennia off well established moral and social decency. We’ve swung from no compassion to unbridled compassion. “Revolution” rarely seeks a middle ground.

In tougher times the freaks would be outcasts and would either fake it until they make it, be an outcast, or off themselves. That’s a tough choice.

A lesser realized issue humanity faces is genetic too:

Two people with breast cancer in their family marry each other. They have kids and they marry people with a similar family issue. But love is love so let’s marry who we want without looking for more dominant genes or just not reproduce. Instead, we’re going to fuck and make babies and pass a more dominant cancer gene on.

The same goes for serious dental corrections. We’re going to keep breeding with people that have perfect smiles only to realize that both parents had major corrections and those babies are going to one day come out with teeth on their forehead.

There are more but you get the idea.

2 Likes

The libs don’t like survival of the fittest. They attacked the alphas, proper up betas and and now we have a country of weak soy boys.

1 Like

South Park got it right…

We get a choice between a douchebag and a shit sandwich every 4 years to give us the illusion of choice. In reality the cards are already stacked against us because the powers that be decide who’s running… they do this with money and political parties (AKA the Dem/Rep monopoly)

Want to be president? The only 2 requirements are that you’re a naturalized citizen and are 35 years old… that leaves at least 100 million people up for running. However now you have to raise billions of dollars to run your own campaign, need to garner 5%of the national vote in the previous election to even get a spot at the debates (thanks Ross Perot).

Everything is rigged, this is why we got to choose from McCain or Obama, Romney or Obama, Trump or Hillary, Trump or Biden… fuck those choices with a 10" OG hog!

1 Like