THE FOUNDATIONAL VIOLENCE OF MYTH: Myth as an Architecture of Terror.
In one of my previous posts, I talked about the sense of exceptionality and how human beings end up killing themselves through their own “reflection,” using the metaphor of the reflection to refer to the ego and the self.
💬 0 🔁 5 ❤️ 9 · A long time ago, when I began to take an interest in analyzing my favorite figures (historical and literary), especially th
I also used images of Narcissus, since the myth of Narcissus can serve as a good reference to simplify my explanation.
Today I want to talk about the power of myth and narrative, how they can be constructed, and how they can be used as weapons to build and shape societies… and also to manipulate the masses.
All of this is purely for entertainment purposes. I enjoy analyzing literary characters and drawing parallels with reality 😉😉
[...]
When one thinks of an exceptional leader, certain qualities usually come to mind: charisma, good communication skills, the ability to connect with people, intellect, and wisdom.
But do you really need all of that to manipulate people? Yes and no. Charisma is necessary, but so is knowing how far to go, what to target, and what the collective weakness of a group of people is.
And here comes the figure of the “messiah,” the “founder,” the charismatic man who gives people hope and lifts them up.
Frank Herbert, in his work, Dune, analyzes the psychology of the masses and how collective trauma, suffering, and hope can be dangerous.
Paul Atreides is an absolutely peak science-fiction character (and deeply terrifying) because he consciously decides to embody the figure of the messiah, even though he knows it is all false. He knew exactly the power of myth. Lady Jessica (in the film) knows it too, which is why she begins to build stories, provoke them, attract believers, and turn Paul into a messianic figure. And Paul doesn’t like it, because he knows exactly what his mother wants to turn him into: a symbol, a living legend, a myth. And that will serve as the pillar to reach total power, and the “prophecy,” a prophecy that does not exist, because it was created by the Bene Gesserit.
The Fremen serve here as a reflection of a broken society, one that rationalizes its suffering, loss, and struggle through prophecy, just as people can rationalize suffering through religion.
Faith is dangerous, in the sense that it can be used to build or to destroy.
And here comes the worst part: the Fremen use their faith in Paul as the messiah to commit a g*nocid*, across the universe, wiping out roughly 30 billion people 💀
Paul knew what would happen, and he chose to continue. He is not innocent (he is evil as h*ll 💔) and that is precisely why Dune becomes even more enjoyable once you truly understand it.
In that sense, Frank Herbert reflects the psychology of the masses: a messianic leader takes vulnerable societies that rationalize death and suffering through the construction of myth and prophecy.
I wish I could say this is just science fiction, but to our shame, this extends dangerously into modern societies, with charismatic figures who know how to reach people and build their own “political religion.”
Let’s first analyze figures that come to mind, messianic figures who are not consciously so, but rather victims of their own myth.
Joan of Arc.
Joan of Arc is today a saint and a martyr, an adolescent with extraordinary leadership abilities who brought an end to a war that lasted more than a hundred years, something even the most experienced kings and generals could not achieve.
And yet, Joan did it. She raised the morale of the army, not consciously, but through her own faith in her mission. She never wanted anything in return, neither power nor influence, only to fulfill what she believed God had entrusted her with.
The tragic part is how her story ends: she dies young, abandoned, essentially left to die on purpose.
But that ending seals her myth and grants her eternal glory.
But what was the use of glory, if she couldn’t live to enjoy it? Everyone turned their back on her in life.
That is the danger of becoming a living legend. When your myth runs out, when the Hundred Years’ War ended, Joan became disposable, and all those who had once been her companions essentially discarded her.
Now, what if we move to a more contemporary scenario? My references may seem wild, but this is where the MAGA movement of Donald Trump (Make America Great Again) comes in.
With his buddy epstein 🥹
Son 😂😂😭
Anyway.
Trump entered politics initially as an anti-establishment figure, someone who positioned himself as being on the side of the people, seeking followers and his own political stage. And yes, at the time, his “appeal” was that he seemed “honest,” rebellious, and detached from traditional political conventions.
And he did achieve his objective, because he managed to gain an exaggerated number of followers who were no longer just on the conservative and Republican side, but on his side. His brand became unconditional support for Donald Trump in everything he did, and this included the near coup attempt he carried out after losing the election, which ultimately failed.
The situation is that it’s unclear whether, at the beginning, his plan was deliberately to construct himself as an exceptional, rebellious figure aligned with conservatism. But regardless of whether that was his intention or not, he created his own cult. And yes, people on TikTok are not exaggerating when they say MAGA supporters are Trump worshippers, because they probably are.
He made sure to fill the narrative, to promote exactly what his followers wanted, to reinforce and validate their supremacist beliefs.
The sad part is that now the myth is collapsing. His popularity no longer serves him because he is not fulfilling his promises or achieving his goals. When the struggle drags on, when people themselves begin to suffer and fight, the myth breaks.
Today, Trump is practically focused only on himself and his legacy, on his story, his myth, and his narrative. I don’t think he cares whether people starve or not, because he doesn’t, having made a great deal of money from his presidency. What’s ironic is how people drift away from what they originally fight for, take a reference figure, and turn it into a reflection of the self, after which total moral collapse follows.
This has happened many times before, and it already happened in German society in the 1930s, when a messianic figure (the Austrian painter) and his small group of propaganda ministers took advantage of a society traumatized by the First World W*r, exploiting that trauma and offering promises of total meaning.
The Austrian painter and his little gang of villains began to build a fantasy of a “political religion,” using all kinds of theatrical settings and liturgy to give meaning to their rituals. The Austrian painter himself rehearsed his speeches and made theatrical gestures, since he was the main attraction.
They played with people and indoctrinated them like puppies for a decade, convincing them that they were superior and therefore deserved to eliminate minorities.
They believed they were the chosen ones, believed that destiny was on their side (the same idea I mentioned with Macbeth), and that this justified the monstrosity of their actions.
practically collective psychosis.
And this teaches us something: what is dangerous to people is not a tyrant, but the sick need for a savior.
Supremacism, the need for a collective ideal self, projected onto a single person.
When a myth is created, one must understand that there is no turning back and that control over it is lost.
Sometimes not even death destroys it, and through it, it continues to exterminate.
"I only knew Rich for about a month. I know what you're thinking. How well can you know anyone in a month? If you weren't good friends, why are you even speaking at his funeral? But maybe there aren't such things as...good friends or bad friends. Maybe there are just friends. People who stand by us when we're hurt,and who help us not feel so lonely. Maybe friends like those are always worth being scared for and hoping for, and living for. Maybe worth dying for, too, if that's what has to be. Rich taught me that too. No good friends, no bad friend. Only people we want to be with, need to be with. People who build their houses in your heart."
A long time ago, when I began to take an interest in analyzing my favorite figures (historical and literary), especially the more ambiguous and morally complex ones, I ended up noticing an interesting pattern.
How the leader kills himself with his own reflection.
My first analysis began with Coriolanus Snow and his beginnings in The Ballad of the Songbirds and Snakes, and how he betrayed both himself and others out of his own ambition, ultimately ending in a total emotional disconnection. I had previously analyzed in other posts Snow’s behavior throughout the book and concluded that he suffered from (or at least displayed) narcissistic traits, which dominated and guided his actions, alongside moments of low self-esteem and, at other times, an absolute sense of exceptionalism, even to the point of despising and instrumentalizing others.
This is seen in the cases of Lucy Gray and Sejanus, who were fundamental parts of his life. I used the metaphor that Lucy and Sejanus represented Snow’s humanity, a humanity he made sure to destroy with his own hands, even unconsciously (believe it or not).
This brings to mind other figures throughout history who also possessed charisma, a sense of exceptionalism, and ambition. One of my favorite characters is Macbeth, a man who at first did not seem to show any signs of evil but eventually, driven by his ambitions (and by Lady Macbeth), committed unimaginable and terrible acts just to ascend to the throne and become king, even betraying his own principles and himself. One of the most terrifying things about Lady Macbeth, and one of the reasons I consider her one of the most intelligent female characters in the history of literature, is that she seemed to have an exquisite understanding of human behavior and knew exactly when to manipulate Macbeth, when to stop him in his tracks, and when to feed that sense of exceptionalism. She knew exactly who her husband was and what to do to make him do what she wanted.
In the end, Macbeth fell because of his own pretension, because of his own pride. Because of his own reflection. When he encounters the witches, that encounter plants the seed of ambition; Lady Macbeth does not change it, she only nurtures his desires. And in the end, what Macbeth lived through was flattery, moral dissociation, and absolute certainty in his exceptionalism, in the prophecy, in the belief that he deserved power. He did not fall because he wasn’t strong, he did not fall because he wasn’t clever, he did not fall because he lacked greatness. He fell because he let himself be blinded by it (by flattery and the disconnection from reality) which killed him, as well as his inability to process guilt, and his excessive confidence, leaving him incapable of even predicting his own downfall.
And unfortunately, hers too.
And here we return to Coriolanus, a young man who, after becoming president of Panem and having killed his own humanity (symbolically), becomes exactly what he wanted, feeding that youthful sense of exceptionalism that constantly drove him to act inhumanely and convinced him that no one else deserved power. And here comes the figure of Plutarch Heavensbee, whom I have mentioned before and consider a total genius, though I never explained exactly why. Plutarch Heavensbee served as a mirror; I explained the parallels between Sejanus and Plutarch in another of my analyses and argued that Plutarch and other characters served as mirrors for Sejanus, the archetype of the best friend, but in this case, the one who did not confront, the one who did not make Snow question his own beliefs and intentions.
After the release of The Hunger Games: sunrise on the reaping, which narrates Haymitch’s story, it becomes absolutely clear who was the mastermind behind the rebellion: clearly, Plutarch.
Plutarch, like Lady Macbeth, also possessed an exquisite ability to read human behavior, which is exactly seen in the people he selects: Haymitch and Katniss. Two people he knew would, in some way, be capable of achieving their objectives, regardless of whether the plan failed or not. That is why, in the end, he does not act surprised when Katniss kills Coin; it wasn’t that he expected it, but neither was it completely foreseeable, he simply reacted with pride to the situation, as if seeing someone he had chosen act according to their convictions and ultimately not let themselves be absorbed by the system.
Plutarch managed to get his way for years, probably being one of the richest men in Panem, a man with privileges who could have easily adapted and lived according to the system, according to Panem’s excesses, but he did not. And that fascinates me about him as a character; he is a man who broke the mold and preferred to sacrifice his life and comfort for his vision and convictions. In the end, he knew how to manipulate Snow, knew how to act as a servant, as a flatterer, as a man who obeyed and stayed silent, who served what was considered absolute authority: Snow.
He was not incompetent, not a dreamer, not naive, nor did he live in fantasies.
He set out to do something, and he achieved it.
And in the end, when Snow least expected it, Plutarch betrayed him because he had orchestrated a total rebellion against him, his people, and the place where he was born, probably over decades.
He killed him by manipulating him, flattering him, and using him and his own sense of exceptionalism.
He fell because Plutarch fed him too much, disconnected him from reality, distracted him. Plutarch spent decades planning a rebellion without being discovered, probably because he was seen as a loyal dog, a gullible man.
And here comes one of the esoteric symbols that fascinates me most and perfectly describes this:
A snake eating its own tail, poisoning itself with its own venom, repeating the cycle over and over, endlessly.
Ouroboros
I would like to expand on this, giving examples of other historical figures, but this is already too much, I think I’ve made my point...
My conclusion is this:
There are leaders who do not fall due to a lack of intelligence, charisma, or leadership.
They fall because they allow themselves to be fed by their own pretensions, by their own reflection.
They surround themselves with people who do not contradict them, who do not make them uncomfortable, who do not tell them the truth, who create a cult of absolute loyalty around them.
And that, in the end, disconnects them, isolates them from the world.
stormborns
izzy806
romaincrisis
origamiaround
turnnoffyourmind
snowghoul
dededos
