Diplocracy in effect

Among the human specimens studied thus far, an impulsive form of behavior has emerged regarding expected public reactions. Those humans not in public positions seem reluctant to tolerate any public statement that does not align with the values of what is agreed upon as "the proper statement." Let it further be made clear that "the proper statement" often times shows little regard for the empirical truth of the matter.

This behavior may not seem peculiar, considering that the human ego has led most members of the species to regard their individual lives as the appropriate existences. Yet somehow, a majority of humans seem to have agreed on parallel delusions that defy the actual state of their cosmic existence. For example, death, the inevitable event of earthly existence, is often avoided for consideration. In the event that death must be recognized, it is usually addressed as tragic, despite its inevitability--and despite the fact that no human being can provide others with a proper understanding of it. (N.B. Humans make mention of near-death experiences, but anything short of complete death is not death entirely, nor can it be understood as death.)

Further study must be done to unravel the twisted thought processes by which humans finalize these group decisions of pseudo-truth. One possible factor seems to be their affinity for moral certainty. Many humans take false comfort in attaching their personal morals to entities that do not have their own faculties for moral reasoning (i.e. physical objects, other earthly creatures that have not yet developed moral codes). And the human preoccupation with moral code is just one factor in their tendency for diplocracy. Many more factors will be discussed in future entries.

One thing is quite clear though, species-wide. The public figures of a given sub-species have little choice but to perpetuate the illusions already decided upon by their predecessors, for if they do not keep these illusions alive, they will lose the support of the consensus--at which point they become ineffective for implementing any future change (even if they did someday hope to enact practical and empirical changes that would provide a more sustainable existence for all humans, regardless of their moral code). As a result, it is often the most charismatic of the species rising to positions of control over those who are unable to decode public sentiment as little more than charisma.

What's more interesting is what this suggests as the inevitable future of the human species, since this trend will most likely continue indefinitely. Given that human intelligence (like other aspects of natural law) can be traced out on a bell curve, it seems likely that the collective endeavor of human civilization has rendered humans incapable of evolving any faster than the average among them (since average intelligence translates into majority vote). The only possible means for accelerating the momentum of the current diplocratic stalemate is for the most intelligent human specimens to assume positions of power.

Based on the data available thus far, this possibility has not yet shown itself a likely one for human civilization, for how can intelligence outdo charisma when there's so much distasteful truth for charisma to ignore?