The obsession with control is one of the main characteristics of the state of being both the suppressive and the loose cannon the suppressive succeeded in making the same as himself are in, and its importance is such that it must be highlighted so as to receive due attention.
The name already says it all, in that it describes what it is entirely: the individual is obsessed with controlling others, an obsession that never leaves one for a moment, that every moment is at the top of one's priorities, the obsession of controlling them completely and continuously, imposing one's will on others on everything, at any moment, down to the last detail. The obsession to control everyone obsessively - and the insistent use here of the word obsession in all its forms is deliberate.
This is at the same time an intention, and a motive: having this intention, everything he tries to do to others is driven by this motive.
Obviously one must not be fooled by their tricks: part of what they do consists of making out of thin air, or artfully inflating, both reasons and circumstances that justify the need for all that control.
Obviously, this is a textbook case of reversale of cause and effect: the truth is, their intention to control is the cause, and such reasons and circumstances are the effect; not the apparent opposite.
It is a little less obvious to highlight that there are two distinct types of control, good and bad, that those obsessed with control pursue bad control, and that their obsession ends up putting good control in a bad light. On the contrary, in fact, those obsessed with control has every interest in putting good control in a bad light. Let's see how.
Learning to ride a bicycle means being able to exercise good control on bicycles: you go where you want, and you enjoy cycling without ending up on the ground.
Prevent learning to ride a bicycle means gaining the power to exercise bad control, and say: "you see you're not capable, and that therefore - for your own good, mind! - you must ask me for permission for anything, I must prevent you from doing anything, and in the little I grant you you must do as I say?"
Incidentally, it goes without saying that from here to demanding a levy in exchange for that permit is just a short step... isn't it?
One of the proofs that we are allowing criminals to rule us is that everything they do is always against us, never in our favour.
Every morning, when we open our eyes, our first thought is, "Who knows what else they've come up with today to prevent us from living?" "Ruling" and "harming the people" are synonimous, and we have been reduced to hope that, at least for today, they have done nothing. No news is good news; this is what we are reduced to.
And if we don't think so, it's only because we're sunk into resignation enough to persuade ourselves that being ruled by criminals who want to squeeze us dry first and then exterminate us is the only possible state of things. And they do know that. And they thrive on our resignation, too.
In everything they do to harm us, one of their main objectives is controlling us - bad control, needless to say.
To shear the sheep, first, and to slaughter it, then, they must hold it still.
The firmer they hold it, the more wool, first, and the more blood, then, they can squeeze out of it, and with less strain.
As a consequence, not only everything our rulers do is to harm us, but, particularly, most of what they do is to enslave us with bad control.
The characteristics of this bad control help us to not only detect it, but to understand it as well.
In a word, it's too much.
Goes without saying that too much control also means pervasive, detailed, perverse, insane, dystopian, slavery-like control, and all the adjectives it deserves.
And in essence too much means that, instead of being of help, it is an obstacle; instead of solving problems, it creates problems.
Someone once said something like, "I use the river banks to strengthen the flow, not to hinder it."
Despite all the propaganda to make us believe that there is a need for more control, we all instinctively know that there is a right measure of control, that good control is the minimum necessary to make things fly, and that bad control is the excess that causes them to crash.
... not to mention freedom, isn't it?
After all, we're nobody's fools.
And then why on earth one should insist on bad control?
Because either one is playing fool or plain fool. ... or both.
Yep, because both the one who wants to shear us and the one who wants to slaughter us are criminals.
Suppressive criminals.
We are familiar with the distorted view of reality held by the suppressive person.
We also know that the suppressive person is successful when he manages to make the loose cannon the same as himself.
We therefore know that, for both of them, every other being is an enemy ready to attack them at any moment.
Therefore, if we acknowledge that, although it does not correspond to reality, this is, however, their point of view, and if we put ourselves in their shoes, the cause of their obsession with control becomes perfectly clear and logical:
If every other being is an enemy ready to attack them at any moment, then every other being represents a constant and imminent danger, and must be rendered harmless.
Like any source of danger, therefore:
first, it must be kept under surveillance;
second, its dangerousness must be minimised, making it increasingly less free, aware and capable;
third, wherever and whenever possible, it must be destroyed once and for all.
Incidentally, from this point of view, another common thread clearly emerges: the war on some very specific elements:
- personality
- critical thinking
- initiative
- movement
- speed
If, for the suppressive criminal, every other being is an imminent and constant danger to be rendered harmless, a sheep to be held still so that it can first be sheared and then slaughtered, it is obvious that:
- the more conformist it is,
- the more uncritical it is,
- the more passive it is,
- the slower it moves,
- and the less it moves,
the better for the butchers - both in reality and in their distorted view of it.
Again incidentally, the obsession with control is largely the motive behind another cancer afflicting Humanity: the obsession with conquest.
Since communities need a certain amount of water, space and other resources to survive, it is logical that they should try to obtain them; if the fact that there is not enough for everyone becomes a cause for conflict, this is not caused by scarcity, but by suppressive criminals who foment strife, because sane people will cooperate and work to provide more, and in this cooperation everyone simply wants to live, and to live in peace.
If someone tries at all costs to climb on the shoulders of others, to plant his flag in his neighbours' homes, he is not a leader to be admired and followed; he is a sociopath to be isolated and neutralised.
And what motivations could drive someone to not only steal from their neighbours' plate instead of cooperating, but even to go and tell them, "You are my property"?
The first motivation is the worldview currently known as neoliberalism: we are all enemies in conflict, and the only thing that matters is material possession. If the suppressive person manages to instil this idea in others, he has started a mass production of loose cannons that will destroy each other.
The second motivation is the obsession with control: why on earth would I have the urge to tell my neighbours, "You are my property"? So that I can control them.
But that's not all. There's more.
Suppressives and loose cannons have accomplices. Many accomplices. Too many.
They are the low-toned people.
The ‘tone’ is the state of being of the individual, emotional and general. Just as there is ‘muscular tone,’ there is also ‘mental and spiritual tone’. It can be low, as in apathy, fear, or anger; it can be medium, as in indifference or satisfaction; and it can be high, as in interest, joy, or enthusiasm.
The fact is that this state of being encompasses every aspect of thought and behaviour, not just emotions. And this also includes a very specific aspect: tolerance of the amount of movement.
In the environment we find ourselves in, there is a certain amount of movement: crowds, city traffic, noise and music are high amounts of movement, while deserted spaces and silence are low amounts of movement.
The higher the tone, the higher the amount of movement tolerated.
The lower the tone, the lower the amount of movement tolerated.
A high-toned individual, as a cheerful, enthousiast child, seeks movement: he screams, jokes, plays, sings, runs, acts.
A low-toned individual, as an adult in a foul mood, abhors movement: he tells high-toned individuals to shut up, to stay still, not to make any noise, not to act.
The first thing to know is that it is the high-toned person who is right, not the low-toned one. Because survival requires action, action requires energy, and energy requires enthousiasm.
The second thing to know is that low-toned individuals, both individually and in groups, BY REPRESSING MOVEMENT IN ANY FORM, are in fact accomplices of suppressives and loose cannons.
These are the obsession with control, the individuals responsible, their motive, amd their accomplices.
Why is it important to know them?
First, a problem is not permanently solved until its true root cause is identified and removed; second, knowing this makes you more effective, allowing you to focus on the right points rather than the wrong ones scattered by suppressives and loose cannons precisely to confuse and obscure the right ones: themselves.
Knowing that, we also know a couple other things:
the champions of bad, obsessive control are either suppressives or loose cannons, and won't stop on their own;
bad, obsessive control is suppressive and must be rooted out and prevented, not excused;
if we fail to personally take the responsibility to do that, we are doomed.