A Phil-for-an-ill Blog

December 11, 2008

Five Steps to Tyranny


Producer: Adelene Alani

Five Steps to Tyranny tells the story of how human nature allows us to descend into a barbaric society. A primetime documentary film for the BBC’s Human Rights Human Wrongs series. Source

To implement tyranny, the aspiring tyrant should do as follows:

1. ‘Us’ and ‘them’: use prejudice to foster the (fictional) notion of the existence of superior and dominant in-groups and inferior and powerless out-groups.

Notes: The program shows a primary school teacher do a miniature sociological experiment with her pupils (all White). She successfully and instantly creates a prejudicial segregation between her blue eyed pupils and her brown eyed pupils, insisting that the former (in-group) are “better” than the latter (out-group).

I think the reason why the experiment was so overwhelmingly successful has to do with the level of self-confidence the youngsters have. They are typically insecure, vulnerable and easily manipulated. Because of their gullible nature and their self-perception of inferiority they tend to welcome any opportunity to feel better about themselves to get ahead of their juvenile predicament. So when the teacher declares that one group is above the other, even though it is but an experiment with a fictional basis, the so deemed dominant in-group eagerly acts on it all the while at the expense of the dominated out-group who’s members quickly sink lower in self-esteem.

It is worrisome that members of the in-group shows instant hostility towards members of the out-group, and seem to be reluctant of showing compassion or sympathy with members of the out-group. This ruthless hierarchical behavior, as opposed to egalitarian behavior, seems strongly reminiscent of behavior also seen in the animal kingdom.

Unfortunately, as the documentary also showed, the possibility of creating in-groups versus out-groups is not limited to children, who are naturally inclined to feel as lesser beings compared to other age-groups (adolescents and adults). I would suggest that basically the sufficient condition for this animalistic sense of segregation, is the existence of widespread sentiments of inferiority and low self-esteem among the population distinct classes are to be drawn from.

Examples in history abound. Germany was in the middle of a depression when a tyrant overwhelmingly victoriously emerged. The Nazis embody an excellent example in which in-groups and out-groups are successfully created. Nazi ideology meant discrimination between the Aryan Indo-Europeans (the Master-race, “Herrenvolk” or “uebermenschen”) as the favored in-group, versus all other “races” (Subhumans or “untermenschen”), by necessity and intention, deemed inferior. Most of us know what cataclysmic and horrific events flowed from this German Nazi “in-group”.

Germany however was not the only country in which Nazi ideology held sway. The WWII region of former Yugoslavia poses another example. The German Nazis regarded the Slavs, in particular the Slavs of Eastern Europe, to be inferior to their own Aryan heritage. The yoke of inferiority must have weighed rather heavy on the Slavs. This collective sense of Slav inferiority changed however with the advent of Ante Pavelic who formulated a specific racist doctrine that declared, based on a pseudo-scientific argumentation, that the Nazi Croats were of superior stock as compared to the Non-Nazi Serbs:

To head this new government Hitler and Mussolini installed Ante (Anthony) Pavelíc. The two major groups in Pavelíc’s new state were the Serbs and the Croats. Both of these are ethnic South Slavs and they even share the Serbo-Croatian language. However, Pavelic was not one to sacrifice his racist ideology to ethnic or linguistic facts. Shortly before he came to power he published “a Croat lexicon, cutting out all ‘Serb’ words, an ambitious task, since the languages are almost identical”. [2] Pavelíc even maintained that the Croats were completely unrelated to the Serbs. He informed the Catholic Croats that they were “Aryans” (Ancient Goths, no less), and that the Orthodox Serbs, alone were “Slavs”, which made them, in the Nazi scheme, “Untermenschen”. Source

Consequently, a genocide engulfed Croatia wiping out some 750 thousand Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. The in-group, out-group separation had worked well.

2. Obey orders: insist that all people under your wing are to obey your orders.

Notes: Where are the boundaries to obedience? Authority figures add to the tendency to obey. Acting without thinking lies at the heart of the emergence of tyranny. Over the course of history there have been more crimes committed in the name of obedience than disobedience.

3. Dehumanize the enemy: emphasize on making inimical factions look  less than human.


Notes: People tend to readily obey commands even when it goes against their conscience. People obey if their superiors take up responsibility and blame for any possible negative outcome. It is easier to do harm if the target is seen as less than human (e.g. like animals). “When you kill rats, you don’t spare their babies” said a Tyrannical leader in charge of massacre of the Tutsis.

4. ‘Stand up’ or ‘stand by’: suppress dissenting or opposing opinions to your own.

Notes: Suppression of all rebellion and dissenting opinion is the hallmark of tyranny. “Evil thrives when good men do nothing.”

5. Suppress Individuality: foster the development of group identities while suppressing the individual.


Notes: The oppressor takes on group identity so that his thoughts and actions are entirely defined by the role played out rather than those of the individual. The responsibility of acts of ‘ethnic cleansing’ (extermination of rival or inferior factions) is thus distributed over the group, in general, and its leadership or staff in particular. A lack of responsibility makes way for irresponsible actions to become a reality, quite literally.

Regarding sadism going on prisons, I think the fear factor should not be forgotten. Prison guards, by definition, have to deal with criminals, some of which are dangerous and hardened. Nonetheless, the guards must be able to gain and maintain a sufficient level of supremacy over the prisoners. As a consequence, a tension between the guards and prisoners exists which may erupt in the realization of atrocities that either victimizes prisoners or guards. Since the latter have legal supremacy, prisoners are most likely to be victimized but in case guards are victimized this may fuel over-compensatory acts of sadistic retribution in which prisoners are ‘dealt with’ more than they deserve. In addition, otherwise innocent and rule-abiding prisoners may be drawn in and victimized by unwarranted sadistic behavior on the part of the guards.

Role-play (“just doing one’s duty/job”) comes in handy as it may serve to obfuscate the need for guards to express regret or have conscience problems for the extra unnecessary hurt they cause. They may reason away their sadistic behavior by arguing  that the prisoners simply have brought it on themselves and deserve to be treated the way they were, even as degrading as animals.

In addition, it is taboo for guards to show emotions of fear and weakness in front on the prisoners as it might set them up as their target. This further reinforces the guards to find sanction in role-play only to further stiffen their attitude towards the prisoners. Also the imperative not to look foolish or incompetent in front of one’s colleagues further cements guard group-identity and group-conformity.

All these group-identity encouraging mechanisms go ever at the expense of individuality and behavior that would be considered humane and fruits of a caring and responsible human being.

Closing program notes:

“We could be led to do evil deeds. […] To become sensitive to the conditions under which ordinary people can do these evil deeds. […] And to take a position of resisting tyranny at the very first signs of its existence.”

Video References:

Quiet Rage: Stanford Prison experiment

The Stanley Milgram Experiment – Obedience (5 parts)


  1. […] This ruthless hierarchical behavior, as opposed to egalitarian behavior, seems strongly reminiscent of behavior also seen in the animal kingdom . Unfortunately, as the documentary also showed, the possibility of creating in-groups versus …[Continue Reading] […]

    Pingback by Stocks and Bonds » Blog Archive » Five Steps To Tyranny « a Phil-For-an-Ill Blog — December 12, 2008 @ 3:03 am | Reply

  2. […] Full video review of the Beeb’s, Five Steps to Tyranny (including links and references) Five Steps to Tyranny A Phil-for-an-ill Blog […]

    Pingback by Five Steps to Tyranny (video review) - Club Conspiracy Forums — December 12, 2008 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  3. Hmmm. Banned from the Leo Zagami forum by hackers.
    Let’s try here.

    Any how, I am not frustrated about psychology. This is a lie. I don’t know where you get me saying that, where you get that conclusion from. I merely described the truth, and if you think the truth is not convenient to you, and go invent a lie like accusing me of being frustrated whatever, well, what can I say. I’m used to it.

    You say also that there are more traditions within psychology. You do not give any example, you give no sane argument, you have no proof for your corrupt statement. I don’t know whether you will keep on lying, or will start understanding what I say. But for a visitor here that might be loyal to truth, I will explain some statements that are on the linked wikipedia page:

    [quote]Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior and interpersonal relationships.[/quote]
    This is studied by behaviorist experiments on animals and children, also adults, and measures reactions to occurrences in a laboratory environs. Humanist psychology uses history to explain such behavior, and used Counter Reforming datamining to get data. The latter might be hard to understand. But I’ll give the examples here of the Oedipus Complex for explaining mens behavior, the Elektra complex for women behavior, that is used by humanist psychology to explain human behavior. This is connected to mythology as I explained above in my previous post. The Wikipedia page also mentions this:[quote]Greek: Ψυχολογία, lit. “study of the mind”, from ψυχή psykhē “breath, spirit, soul”; and -λογία, -logia [/quote] These letters are Greek, because they refer to the Greek source of the Mythology used by Carl Gustav Jung. Oedipus and Elektra are Greek mythological entities from more than 2000 years ago, according to history, and are used in the 20th century to explain human behavior. Jung did not support the take by Sigmund Freud, that all behavior can be dated from sex. We are not discussing psycho analysis though, psycho analysis is not accepted a part of official psychology.

    The connection with Alchemy here is very interesting, because what I tried to explain in my previous post, not only mythology is used, but also knowledge from Reformation by Counter Reformation. Alchemy is knowledge from Reformation, and also the base for Chemistry. But is you read Rosecrusian statements on Alchemy, Alchemy is put as a system for Magick, not Chemistry. Even worse, Rosecrusians deny the connection between Alchemy and Chemistry. This is a plain lie, that is easy to dismantle. Perception here is connected to these systems of lies that are put in modern science by Counter Reformation, that is succesful, because people often invent and support lies when such is convenient. As Phil is doing here. This system of using the weakest side of the human mind for creating succesful Counter Reformation, the bottle neck, is very well described as a strategy in the Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion or the documents that lay the foundation for the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

    My argument for proof that I tell the truth, I will put here by explaining Phil’s psychology:
    Phil’s perception here is clouded, because he had a lot of work on writing many articles on his blog, that might look stupid if the knowledge I give is understood. So he has to create a lie, in order to give me a Post Hominum attack, accusing me of being frustrated. Than added to that is a statement on psychology that is not supported by any fact.

    I don’t think Phil is a Jesuit. Post hominum attacks are given to me by most people I speak to, because the can’t handle the truth. If I say: Cars do not need to run on Petroleum, the people feel attacked by the truth, and go deny such in post hominum attacks.
    Who is frustrated?

    Well, I could in fact go explain many more statements in the wikipedia page. I see however no reason to put so much time in defending against a post hominum attack. The history of Psychology that I described was I would learn at university, the knowledge on Alchemy I have from other sources and experimentation with chemistry and art. I don’t need disbelief, I asked for questions, not frustrated post hominum attacks.

    [b]My questions for Phil:[/b]
    1. What more traditions in Psychology are there than Behaviorism and Humanist Psychology?
    2. What arguments for your statement are found in that Wikipedia page?
    3. Your Oedipus Complex is creating a behavior in you to kill your father (me than knows more on psychology) and fuck your mother (your research of nature and human behavior), but you do not seem to able to kill your father in an honest way. Will you keep on using post hominum attacks?
    4.I did not threaten you, neither did I want to destroy any of your work. Contrary, I am here to ad knowledge to your knowledge base. Can you explain me why than you accuse me of things without any argument to proof your point?

    This is not an attack on you, but on the people that have brainwashed you. And are controlling Europe and this planet. They have brainwashed me also, every one is destroyed by this Charismatic Counter Reformation. I was chatting to Satanists on this forum yesterday, where it was easy to proof that Satanism is Popery. That is more easy to proof as the fact that honest research is wrong from the foundation. The way psychology is controlled is not only by high intellectual attacks, smart forgeries, but also money and assassinations. Bookburning, that I mentioned also in my previous post, is being used to hide the truth, because otherwise the lies will have no succes. Martin Luther had a hard time in proving the churches wrong. So have I.

    Comment by Geus — March 12, 2009 @ 5:57 pm | Reply

    • No-one’s banning you at leozagami.com okay? Also you seem to be perfectly capable of posting again at wordpress after all so I am inclined to think that you were just a bit paranoid (also not intended as a post hominem attack whatever that may mean; it’s just an observation). Here’s a tip that probably will help you: You cannot use non-Latin characters in your post, delete those Greek characters and try again. You may very well be amazed at the results.

      As for different schools of psychology, just go and check the link I provided and read the page. Again, the results may amaze you.

      As for who’s telling the truth and who’s not. It doesn’t really help to call me a liar because I didn’t as lying presupposes intention to not tell the truth and although I might not be telling the truth (all the time) I sure do try to do so.

      The piece you have commented on is mostly my opinion and so lying has nothing to do with it. If you must know, my adopted notion of the ego as a an animal mind derives from gnosticism.

      Comment by Phil — March 12, 2009 @ 9:14 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: