Mentorship - a dog's breakfast.©

 

As I discussed in a previous SOCMED post, mentors are abound everywhere. However, how do you distinguish a genuine mentor from a charlatan? In this submission, I shall try and explore the dark side of mentorship. 

 

These (dark) individuals exhibit a complex psychological profile often rooted in narcissistic vulnerability, martyr complex, and manipulative mentoring tendencies. Rather than embodying the qualities of a true mentor such as wisdom, humility, and empowerment, they thrive on an illusion of guidance that is more about self-validation than genuine support. Let’s break this down:

The Narcissistic Vulnerability Paradox

These people often present themselves as both wounded and enlightened, using their past struggles as a badge of authority. However, rather than demonstrating resilience or solutions, they continuously highlight victimhood to maintain sympathy-driven influence. Their audience, seeing their suffering, may feel obligated to admire or follow them and some do so based on pity while feeding the mentor’s need for validation.

Instead of encouraging self-sufficiency, they create a dependency loop where followers feel like they need this mentor to navigate struggles.

Their message subtly implies, "You are lost without my guidance because I’ve suffered and survived."

The Martyr Complex as a Leadership Tool

Many of these figures position themselves as sacrificial figures, framing their pain as a moral currency that gives them the right to lead. They might say things like:

"I've been through it all, and that’s why I’m am one who truly understands."

Rather than teaching resilience or empowering others to rise on their own terms, they keep reinforcing suffering as a necessary part of wisdom. This indirectly discourages independent thinking because if their audience grows stronger and self-sufficient, their influence weakens.

Rigid Ideology Instead of Adaptive Wisdom

True mentors adapt their perspectives based on listening and understanding individual experiences. However, these individuals often impose their fixed ideology because they aren’t actually interested in clarity or growth but rather in affirmation.

They twist conversations to fit their own worldview, dismissing perspectives that don’t align with their narrative.

They often give prepackaged advice, not tailored guidance, because their authority depends on having "the" answers rather than fostering individual growth.

The "Savior" Complex & Presumed Desperation

A true mentor believes in people’s ability to rise, while these individuals assume others are broken and in need of saving. This is dangerous because:

It predetermines people as victims rather than capable individuals with agency.

It subtly undermines self-confidence, implying that without their wisdom, the listener cannot escape their struggles.

It fosters emotional dependency rather than courage and independence.

The Problem with “Emoting Weakness” as a Lesson

While vulnerability can be powerful in storytelling, constantly using weakness as a tool turns into manipulation rather than inspiration.

If every lesson centres around "look how much I’ve suffered", it shifts focus from empowerment to pity.

Over time, followers internalize struggle as a necessary part of wisdom, which can be detrimental to progress.

What Kind of People Are These?

They are validation-seekers masquerading as mentors. Some possibilities include:

1. Covert Narcissists – They present as humble, but their need for admiration is just as strong as an overt narcissist’s.

2. False Prophets of Self-Help – They build influence not by empowering but by reminding you how much you need them.

3. Manipulative Martyrs – They enjoy perpetual victimhood because it gives them control over perceptions.

4. Ideological Dictators – They demand agreement rather than encourage critical thought. They detest conflicting ideas.

The True Measure of a Mentor

A real mentor does not seek to create followers, instead, they seek to create leaders. If a mentor’s guidance leaves people dependent on them instead of equipped for independence, they are not a mentor. They are a performer masquerading as a guide.

Personally, I have just encountered several such individuals through discourses, including one such lady who made some rather defamatory and racist remarks,  deleted her responses and chose to deny she ever said them. Then, some choose to categorize you before having the courtesy to confirm my views. Oftentimes, messages need to be explained in great detail, and one needs to assess, and if they are not comfortable, they have a right to ask and confirm what was said.

That reaction, deleting responses, suggests defensiveness rooted in insecurity rather than a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Again, if they truly had confidence in their stance, they would have either clarified their position or engaged with your perspective rather than erased it.

This kind of behaviour is often seen in individuals who:

Fear intellectual challenge because it threatens their self-image as a "mentor."

Confuse disagreement with personal attack or when the disagreement is neutral or exploratory. Often, I tend to provide examples of where certain topics, views or situations are common, but these are a part of that exploratory dialogue.

Control the narrative by silencing perspectives that might expose the rigidity of their thinking.

Another example is when I allude to comment about possibly being influenced by media or external sources in a neutral, open-ended observation and hardly an attack. When we talk about open dialogue, who sets the framework of what can and cannot be discussed? Is free thought and speech truly free? A thoughtful person would have either clarified their stance or engaged in a discussion about media influence. Instead, they portray being exposed to something uncomfortable that they were unwilling to confront.

It seems several mentors were more concerned with maintaining an image than having a real conversation. That, in itself, speaks volumes about their authenticity as mentors.

 

I conclude by saying that mentorship is a two-way street.  The mentor and mentee are both on a path of learning. 

This is one of those submissions where I invite discourse. 

 

The Gentile!

Copyright

All rights to posts on TheGentile1@blogspot.com are copyright-protected as of August 31st, 2024 and shall remain in force for all future posts till removed. You shall not copy, share or use any of the content posted by The Gentile or TheGentile1 or The Whispering Sage named collectively in this copyright as the Content Creator in any form whatsoever. All other content on the page, the host platform and any facility provided by the platform, the templates and background do not belong to the Content Creator and therefore are protected under their copyright.

WAR - The Paradox of Purpose.©

The Paradox of Purpose: Examining War as a Tool for Peace and the Shadow of Nefarious Agendas.

 

The question of whether war possesses a legitimate purpose, particularly in the defence of peace, remains a deeply contentious and morally fraught issue. While the visceral horrors of conflict often overshadow any perceived utility, the historical record reveals a complex interplay between violence, security, and political objectives. This article delves into the arguments surrounding war's potential purpose, scrutinizing the assertion that it can serve as a guarantor of peace while also interrogating the potential for such justifications to mask nefarious agendas.

 

The Argument for War as a Defender of Peace: A Necessary Evil?

 

The concept of "just war" (bellum justum) has been debated for centuries, with thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas laying the groundwork for criteria that would legitimize armed conflict. Central to this framework is the notion that war can be a necessary evil, employed as a last resort to rectify grave injustices or repel aggression.

 

Self-Defence and Deterrence: 

 

The most fundamental justification for war lies in the right to self-defence. States, and by extension, individuals, possess an inherent right to protect themselves from existential threats. This principle is enshrined in international law, notably Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of an individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack. Furthermore, the concept of deterrence posits that a credible military capability can prevent aggression by convincing potential adversaries that the costs of an attack outweigh the potential gains.

 

Humanitarian Intervention: 

 

In cases of egregious human rights violations or genocide, the international community may invoke the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) principle, which suggests a duty to intervene militarily when states fail to protect their own populations. This argument rests on the premise that inaction in the face of mass atrocities is morally untenable and that military intervention, though inherently violent, can be the lesser of two evils.

Maintaining International Order: 

 

Wars have historically been waged to enforce treaties, uphold international law, and maintain a balance of power. The idea is that a stable international order, even if achieved through force, can ultimately prevent larger-scale conflicts. For example, the actions taken during WWII to defeat the Axis powers.

 

The Problem of "Necessary Evil": 

 

The phrase "necessary evil" itself reveals the inherent tension. War is undeniably destructive, causing immense suffering and loss of life. To justify it, one must demonstrate that the potential benefits outweigh the costs and that all other peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. However, the subjective nature of these assessments creates a space for manipulation and abuse.

 

The Shadow of Nefarious Agendas: 

 

Ideological Justifications and Power Politics

The assertion that war serves a noble purpose can be a potent tool for mobilizing public support and legitimizing military action. However, history is replete with examples of wars waged under the guise of peace, justice, or security while serving hidden agendas.

 

Ideological Manipulation: 

 

Wars are often framed as battles between good and evil, with adversaries demonized and one's own side portrayed as righteous defenders of universal values. This ideological framing can obscure the true motivations behind conflict, such as economic interests, territorial ambitions, or the pursuit of political power. The use of propaganda, and the control of information are key factors here.

 

Imperialism and Expansionism: 

 

Throughout history, powerful states have used military force to expand their territories, control resources, and impose their will on weaker nations. The rhetoric of "civilizing missions" or "national security" often masks the underlying drive for imperial expansion.

 

The Military-Industrial Complex: 

 

As highlighted by President Eisenhower, the military-industrial complex, a network of vested interests comprising the military, defence industries, and political elites, can exert significant influence over government policy, promoting military spending and perpetuating a culture of militarism. This complex can create a situation where war becomes a self-serving enterprise, driven by profit and power rather than genuine security concerns.

 

The Problem of Preemptive War: 

 

The concept of preemptive war, where a state initiates hostilities based on the perceived threat of a future attack, is particularly problematic. It blurs the lines between self-defence and aggression, creating a slippery slope towards escalation. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction, serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of preemptive action.

 

The Long-Term Effects: 

 

Wars often lead to long-term destabilization, as I have seen in my lifetime with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and several other countries and create more conflicts. The wars in the Middle East have created decades of turmoil and given fodder to new extremist groups.

 

Navigating the Moral Maze

 

The question of whether war has a purpose, particularly in defending peace, is not susceptible to a simple answer. War can, in certain limited circumstances, serve as a necessary evil, a last resort to prevent greater harm. However, the potential for abuse and manipulation is undeniable.

 

To navigate this moral maze, it is crucial to:

Apply rigorous ethical scrutiny to all justifications for war.

Prioritize peaceful conflict resolution and diplomacy.

Promote transparency and accountability in military decision-making.

Challenge ideological narratives that demonize adversaries and glorify violence.

Recognize that the long-term effects of war often outweigh any short-term gains.

Ultimately, the goal must be to create a world where war is no longer considered a necessary evil but rather an obsolete relic of humanity's past.

 

The Gentile!

 

References:

- Walzer, M. (2015). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic books.

- Orend, B. (2013). The morality of war. Routledge.

- United Nations Charter.

- International Committee of the Red Cross.

- Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Farewell Address.

- Power, S. (2002). A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Basic Books.

 

Note: This article provides a framework for understanding the complex relationship between war and peace. Further research and critical analysis are essential to address this enduring challenge.

Copyright

All rights to posts on TheGentile1@blogspot.com are copyright-protected as of August 31st, 2024 and shall remain in force for all future posts till removed. You shall not copy, share or use any of the content posted by The Gentile or TheGentile1 or The Whispering Sage named collectively in this copyright as the Content Creator in any form whatsoever. All other content on the page, the host platform and any facility provided by the platform, the templates and background do not belong to the Content Creator and therefore are protected under their copyright.