top of page

Who Rules the World? You Might Not Want to Know

Writer's picture: Dr. Leon TsvasmanDr. Leon Tsvasman

On Radical Autonomy, Collective Illusions, and the Emergence of Redundancy-Free Co-Creation


“The crowd is untruth.” — Søren Kierkegaard, The Crowd Is Untruth
“There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.” — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

Preamble: Behind the Curtain of Control


Where does power reside? Conspiracy theories often point to secret elites, corporate behemoths, or manipulative bureaucracies puppeteering the masses. Another popular narrative envisions unstoppable crowds or swarm dynamics carrying unstoppable momentum. Yet, if we probe beneath these surface stories, we might uncover a more subtle force—one anchored not in the magnitude of numbers or the cunning of hidden networks, but in the progressive unfolding of radical subject autonomy.


Such autonomy, far from mere contrarianism, stands out because it redefines influence in a more fundamental sense: the ability to reinterpret, recast, and reconfigure the frameworks through which life is experienced. Mass movements can be loud and ephemeral; institutions can claim the facade of permanence but often freeze into self-reinforcing illusions. Meanwhile, a subject who steadily expands interpretive freedom can dissolve illusions at their core, initiating changes that overshadow the short-run noise of entire crowds. This essay lays out why—and how—authentic power belongs to the evolving, co-creative subject who refuses to reduce meaning to ephemeral group validations.


Throughout what follows, we will examine the synergy of autonomy in a broader context of potentiality, ethical orientation, and the quest for “redundancy-free intersubjectivity,” a concept in which no ephemeral illusions hamper interpretive space. We will also see that although it looks solitary at first glance, the radical subject is never truly isolated: it is by cultivating an open horizon of co-creation that the emancipated individual fosters an alternative to manipulative group illusions. In short, as we ask “Who rules the world?” we might find that real power dwells not in any top-down authority or massive crowd impetus, but rather in the single subject’s capacity to remain open to—and reshape—the future.


1. The Spectacle of Mass Momentum


1.1. The Crowd as an Apparent Juggernaut


Historically, large-scale mobilizations—be they revolutions, social upheavals, or major cultural waves—have captured the imagination. When thousands or millions unite under a cause, it can topple leaders, construct monumental works, or shift entire policy realms. This phenomenon leads many to assume that the crowd exerts ultimate control: harnessing the throng is equated with ruling the future. But crowds, while potent for swift impact, remain fragile.


Their unity often relies on fleeting triggers, reactive emotional synergy, or shallow narratives that degrade once the external impetus vanishes. Observers from Gustave Le Bon to Elias Canetti have studied the psychology of the crowd, noting how easily it flips from one extreme stance to another, or disperses once the emotional peak recedes.

That volatility exposes the paradox: although mass impetus may look unstoppable in the moment, it is frequently short-lived, forced to rely on charismatic manipulation or a singular wave of hype. Once these elements fade, the crowd’s coherence dissolves. The result is a cycle of euphoria followed by disarray. Meanwhile, truly enduring changes do not always emerge from such emotional surges alone. Often, they trace back to more consistent vantage points—individuals or small clusters who form a more stable interpretive anchor. Thus, the crowd’s ephemeral might, though impressive, rarely represents a lasting seat of power.


1.2. Top-Down Structures as Apparent Masters


On another front, bureaucracies, states, or corporate entities appear unassailable. They hold resources, bureaucratic labyrinths, legislative frameworks, or vast capital. These structures can overshadow entire populations, producing the impression of an all-controlling machinery. Yet here too, illusions abound. The moment these massive institutions lose the acceptance or passive compliance of individuals, they become hollow. History brims with examples: once enough people withdraw loyalty or challenge the illusions that bind them, entire regimes crumble. Bureaucracies can ossify, ignoring new realities until forced to adapt. The rhetorical question “Who rules?” seldom receives a stable answer; instead, each system tries to manage illusions of perpetuity, but time and again, unanticipated forces—sparked by critical individuals—disrupt the narrative.


Hence, the superficially unstoppable might of major institutions is not necessarily as stable as it pretends to be. It depends on wide-scale buy-in from individuals who do not question the frameworks. Where the subject’s interpretive capacity remains dormant, these institutions appear formidable. But that is precisely where the radical subject can intervene, leveraging a vantage that redefines rules from within or outside, eventually coaxing others to see the illusions for what they are.


2. Radical Subject Autonomy: The Gradual Awakening


2.1. Free Will as a Process in Becoming


Classical discussions of free will often revolve around either-or scenarios: either humans inherently possess free will, or they are trapped by determinism. This essay proposes that free will emerges progressively, intensifying as the subject reclaims interpretive margins from ephemeral or overfitted frameworks. Like an unfolding capacity, it does not remain static. A child may start with minimal autonomy, shaped by external dictates. As they gain experience, moral reflection, or intellectual curiosity, they expand their horizon of choice. If, in adulthood, they yield to crowd impulses or top-down edicts, they regress into lesser autonomy. Conversely, if they continue striving for personal coherence that respects open interpretation, they widen the scope of their free will.


This perspective resonates with the idea that “inspiration” fosters free will. In routine, tactical tasks, the subject might simply follow instructions or comply with social rituals, forgoing deeper reflection. Then, an inspired moment arrives: fresh insights or moral provocations, prompting a reevaluation of goals or assumptions. The subject shifts from mechanical acceptance to a creative interpretive stance, forging or refining personal orientation. That creative stance is precisely the domain of radical autonomy. Freed from pre-imposed illusions, the subject reorganizes their vantage to accommodate moral or existential truths that had not been recognized under group logic.


2.2. Potentiality over Actuality


A further nuance is that radical autonomy leans heavily on potentiality, the realm of “not-yet.” Actual, tactically validated structures often favor short-run success, ignoring how ephemeral they may be. Meanwhile, the subject sees the possibility of new frameworks that do not currently dominate but can be nurtured into existence if enough interpretive capacity and moral impetus converge. This interplay sets the stage for transformative leaps that surpass the limited horizon of mass mania or short-term institutional success. By aligning personal orientation with the next wave of moral or conceptual progression, the subject effectively partakes in shaping the future—a deeper, more enduring form of rule than immediate compliance or ephemeral policy changes could provide.


3. The Concept of Redundancy-Free Intersubjectivity


3.1. Redundancy in Social and Ethical Contexts


In communications theory, redundancy can be valuable, ensuring messages survive noise. Yet in social or ethical contexts, certain redundancies become stifling. For instance, think of unending disclaimers, over-elaborate bureaucratic guidelines, or moral statements that specify each detail of how a subject “must” respond, leaving zero interpretive freedom. Such frameworks, ironically, hamper long-term adaptability. By saturating every gap with rigid detail, they disallow re-interpretation. Over time, they calcify or produce violent breakdowns once circumstances diverge from the original plan.


Ethically, “redundancy-laden frameworks” function as short-run crowd tactics: they might unify a group under a single slogan or condemnation but cannot scale into genuine moral synergy. As soon as a new complexity appears, the framework fails or collapses. In contrast, a “redundancy-free” approach leaves interpretive spaces open for co-creative synergy, enabling each subject to bring fresh insights without having to wage war against dogmatic constraints. The result is not chaos but elasticity in moral discourse—an environment more robust in the face of changing conditions.


3.2. Intersubjectivity is Autonomy


“Intersubjectivity” typically describes shared cognition or mutual understanding among multiple agents. But if those agents are all enslaved to the same ephemeral illusions or group mania, their intersubjectivity remains superficial. By contrast, when each subject steps into the domain of radical autonomy, they do not yield interpretive freedom to the group. Instead, they collaborate from a vantage of personal clarity, checking illusions carefully. The synergy that emerges is “redundancy-free”: no single dogma forcibly dictates the entire shape of discourse. Each participant may propose partial frameworks that can adapt collectively. This synergy can scale, forging moral or intellectual unity that does not violently unravel under new data or moral dilemmas. Instead, it reorients seamlessly.

As a corollary, such synergy, once established, can overshadow ephemeral illusions spun by manipulative media or short-lived mass outrages. It produces an alternative moral and conceptual bedrock. Over time, it might become the primary lens through which a broad set of individuals interpret crises or controversies, displacing ephemeral mania with a deeper orientation.


4. Ethical Orientation as Key to Meaning


4.1. Orientation toward Freedom


Building on the earlier statement, meaning is not an object to be discovered once and for all; it is an orientation that fosters and expands autonomy. If an individual’s frameworks are so heavily overfitted that they have no room for reinterpretation, meaning degenerates into dogma. On the other hand, if the subject’s vantage remains too vague or uncommitted, it risks sliding into a kind of relativistic haze, offering no real impetus for action or moral stands.


Thus, the concept of “ethically grounded open orientation” suggests that meaning flourishes where we hold to certain universal or consistent ethical commitments—like the refusal to selectively excuse hatred—but we do so without saturating every interpretive gap. We keep space for evolution, context, and new moral challenges that might arise. This posture shapes a horizon in which each new event or moral dispute can be weighed carefully, ensuring we do not cling to illusions or ephemeral moral outbursts. The subject remains anchored in the principle of further autonomy for all involved.


4.2. Consistency as the Cornerstone of Integrity


Many ephemeral moral outrages fail precisely because they are not consistent: one side condemns a hateful gesture but ignores equally hateful gestures from a favored faction. This inconsistency undermines trust and reveals group partiality. The radical subject, by embracing a universal moral lens that fosters autonomy across the board, avoids this pitfall. Over time, that universal stance acquires an authority that ephemeral condemnation cannot match. Observers see that the subject’s moral vantage is not manipulated by tribal allegiances. That authority fosters real influence—others look to a consistent vantage for guidance when ephemeral mania inevitably fails.

Hence, meaning is intimately tied to moral consistency in enabling autonomy, not merely for oneself but for the entire social sphere. The more one invests in partial truths or ephemeral double standards, the less one can claim genuine meaning. In effect, illusions overshadow the capacity for synergy, fueling confusion and eventual breakdown.


5. How Emancipated Individuals Shape Social Realities


5.1. The Dissidents of Eastern Europe


One classic example is the collapse of Soviet influence across Eastern Europe, where official dogma reigned for decades. Most people, outwardly at least, complied. But beneath the surface, certain dissidents refused the illusions of monolithic ideological correctness. Figures like Václav Havel, through writings and moral stands, cultivated an alternative vantage that honored interpretive freedom. They refused the ephemeral mania of mass parades or forced slogans. Though initially marginalized, once cracks in the official narrative emerged, these emancipated stands attracted broader support. The hollow “power” of the regime’s illusions melted under a synergy anchored in radical autonomy—each subject discovering that they, too, could stop pretending. This synergy, redundancy-free in the sense that it was not forced by ephemeral illusions, created real transformation with minimal direct confrontation.


5.2. Moral Consistency in the Civil Rights Movement


In the American Civil Rights Movement, from Martin Luther King Jr. to smaller grassroots leaders, moral clarity was not used selectively. King and many others insisted that if segregation was wrong, it was wrong across all domains, not just in certain symbolic cases. Their vantage refused ephemeral tactical gains that might have appealed to violent or hateful impulses. Instead, they formed a synergy grounded in universal respect for human dignity. That synergy eventually reshaped national law and culture far more durably than a purely short-run riot or ephemeral crowd wave could have done. Indeed, that synergy was tested by new forms of racism or hidden inequities, but the universal vantage—promoting each person’s autonomy—provided a flexible backbone that endured beyond immediate successes.


5.3. Renaissance Intellectuals


In the Renaissance, thinkers like Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, or Galileo exemplified individuals who did not yield to the ephemeral mania of their time. They engaged with powerful patrons but, in their intellectual or artistic freedom, carved out new horizons that dwarfed the fleeting “trends” of court intrigue. While they faced church censorship or political threats, they anchored themselves in a deeper sense of interpretive creativity. Over centuries, the ideas or artworks they championed overshadowed ephemeral court politics. This underscores how radical subject autonomy, even if seemingly overshadowed by temporal authority, eventually redefines cultural narratives with a staying power ephemeral illusions cannot match.


6. Polemics: The Double Standards of Public Rage


6.1. Selective Outrage


Contemporary social media frequently reveals how certain gestures—like a possibly offensive salute or statement—trigger massive condemnation if performed by someone labeled an “enemy.” Meanwhile, identical or worse gestures from an “ally” faction remain unexplored. This duplicity arises from ephemeral group tactics that saturate interpretive gaps with overfitted condemnation. The group does not weigh the moral significance on a universal scale; it uses condemnation to achieve a short-run “win” or preserve tribal identity.


A radical subject sees the illusions here: these moral outcries do not build consistent ethical frameworks. Instead, they degrade the conversation into mutual scapegoating. The subject who insists on universal application quickly finds themselves accused of disloyalty to the group. But in the broader sense, that stance is the real seat of moral authority: it alone fosters stable synergy that can last beyond the ephemeral wave.


6.2. The Erosion of True Discourse


Over time, ephemeral condemnation corrodes genuine discourse, forcing everyone to walk on eggshells, uncertain when the next moral meltdown might arise. The crowd wields short-run intimidation but fails to produce meaningful growth or synergy. As illusions become too blatant, many participants eventually peel away, disillusioned by hypocrisy. The subject who refused from the start to join the illusions stands recognized, perhaps belatedly, as carrying a vantage that endures. That vantage returns us to the question “Who actually rules?”—the ephemeral wave or the vantage that outlasts it. Historically, it tends to be the vantage.


7. The Power of Co-Creative Subjects


7.1. Autonomy Amplifies Through Dialogue


One might ask: does radical autonomy reduce us to isolated individuals? Not necessarily. Co-creative synergy among emancipated subjects fosters a deeper form of collective intelligence than swarm mania. Each subject retains interpretive freedom, so decisions do not degrade into forced illusions. When they converge on a solution, it emerges from deliberate alignment, not ephemeral fervor. This alignment can handle crises or novel data with minimal breakdown because no single piece of the synergy is forced to “lie” or accept illusions that contradict direct observation. The synergy thus remains coherent, ensuring that expansions of moral or intellectual frameworks come from genuine reflection.


In this sense, synergy might appear slower at first than a viral outburst, but it builds a more resilient structure that can scale ethically and interpretively. Over time, it might overshadow manipulative illusions or ephemeral mania in shaping cultural or policy directions.


7.2. Potentials for a Redundancy-Free Social Sphere


In a radical sense, if enough subjects inhabit this orientation, entire societies can pivot away from short-run crisis-driven approaches. Instead, they adopt a moral consistency that invests in universal autonomy. Even laws or educational systems can shift to reflect partial frameworks open to reevaluation rather than rigid dogma. The result is not anarchy but a novel form of moral democracy—one that sees ephemeral illusions for what they are and fosters consistent synergy across varied contexts. This might sound idealistic, yet historical precedents and smaller-scale communities have shown that once illusions are recognized, they unravel quickly under the gaze of consistent ethical vantage.


8. The Core Question


We circle back to the titular query: if not the ephemeral crowd or hidden elites, who truly holds long-term influence over collective destiny? The answer, from a perspective of radical autonomy, is that the subject who refuses illusions gradually shapes the frameworks that endure. Over long arcs, illusions must repeatedly unravel. The interpretive vantage that can systematically reconfigure moral or conceptual constraints emerges as the only stable impetus for transformation. This vantage does not always manifest in overt power or immediate popularity; it might remain subtle, overshadowed by short-run frenzy, but eventually, it proves far more consequential.


8.1. The Horizon of Becoming


An emancipated subject does not declare final truth. Instead, they hold an orientation that refuses ephemeral mania and remains open to new complexities. This ironically grants them a stable pivot from which to push ethical or conceptual expansions. They see the swirl of mass illusions for what it is: short-run fervor with no lasting spine. Meanwhile, their horizon evolves as fresh data or moral imperatives emerge. This interplay fosters genuine synergy with other emancipated vantage points. Over time, that synergy exerts gravitational pull on culture, overshadowing manipulative illusions.


Thus, ironically, the subject who might appear powerless in the face of “mass might” or “institutional immensity” turns out to hold a deeper power—the capacity to interpret reality anew, to question ephemeral norms, and to reconstruct communal frameworks from universal vantage. The illusions of unstoppable giant forces crumble whenever faced with enough subjects who see them for illusions and have the moral impetus to act accordingly.


9. Possible Objections and Rejoinders


9.1. What If We Are Simply Too Invested in Group Identity?


A skeptic may note that many humans desire group acceptance to the point that they are not easily swayed by appeals to autonomy. They feel safer in a mass identity. Hence, illusions remain stable. Yet the history of ideological collapses shows that illusions remain stable only until a critical mass of individuals sees the contradictions or double standards. Indeed, many people do not break away from swarm logic, but enough do so—especially if moral or existential stakes grow. Over time, that partial group of emancipated vantage points exerts disproportionate influence, simply because illusions cannot sustain their internal contradictions forever.


9.2. Might This Approach Erode Cultural Cohesion?


Another objection claims that focusing on individual autonomy can fragment cultural traditions or communal ties. However, we do not argue for a narcissistic or purely self-centered stance. Instead, we highlight synergy among emancipated individuals, forging “intersubjectivity” that is free from ephemeral illusions. This synergy can preserve or refine cultural traditions that remain open to reinterpretation, discarding dogmatic stances that hamper mutual growth. The result can be a more adaptive cultural cohesion that does not break under new moral or scientific pressures.


9.3. Does This Over-Intellectualize Life?


Still others might say that emphasizing interpretive autonomy makes existence too cerebral or reflective, ignoring emotive or spiritual resonance. In truth, subject autonomy does not conflict with genuine emotion or spirituality. It merely ensures that these dimensions are not forcibly molded by ephemeral group mania or unchallenged illusions. Authentic spirituality and deep emotional bonds can flourish in a synergy that respects each subject’s interpretive freedom rather than imposing uniform dogmas.


10. Conclusion: Toward Autonomy and Renewal


The question “Who rules the world? You might not want to know” points to the unsettling reality that illusions of unstoppable collectives or elites often overshadow more subtle, long-range forces. Yet deeper reflection shows that real, enduring power belongs to those who can interpret, question, and creatively reshape assumptions—the radical subject in progressive becoming. This subject fosters synergy with others on similarly emancipated terms, forging a redundancy-free intersubjectivity resilient against ephemeral mania. In turn, that synergy can produce moral clarity, cultural direction, and ultimate transformation that no ephemeral wave, no matter how loud, can rival.


Hence, the stance of radical autonomy is not about arrogance or isolation. It is about sustaining interpretive space—both for oneself and for others—to handle the unexpected, to unify around consistent ethical standards, and to remain open to reorientation as new contexts arise. Over time, illusions fall. The illusions of unstoppable mass might, ephemeral fads, or manipulative bureaucracies dissolve under the pressure of consistent vantage points that do not yield moral coherence for short-run gains.

If there is a final “secret” to this entire discourse, it is that the more we cultivate radical personal autonomy—free from swarm logic or ephemeral dogmas—the closer we stand to actual influence. We do not need to “control” the crowd; we need only hold a vantage that lasts when illusions break. This vantage does not dissolve in the swirl; it navigates with a continuity that ephemeral mania lacks. That is what constitutes real power: not ephemeral dominion over the present, but the capacity to navigate, reinterpret, and reconstruct in alignment with deeper ethical clarity. Over the long run, that capacity quietly shapes the trajectory of entire civilizations—the real answer to who rules the world. Epilogue: The Reflections

In surveying the tensions between shifting crowds, towering institutions, and the emancipated subject able to see beyond illusions, a deeper constellation of insights emerges. Rather than mere slogans, these statements crystallize a vantage that releases potential rather than imposing control—an orientation anchored in interpretive freedom, ethical consistency, and the recognition that no apparatus or fleeting wave can eclipse a subject who steadily expands in autonomy.


In the post-interdependence era, human potential no longer thrives on what we trade but on what we create together. Economic theories often revolve around exchange—resources, profits, or transactional metrics. Yet once a subject transcends zero-sum frameworks, co-creative endeavor, not mere barter, becomes the focal point of shared possibility. Instead of scrambling for tactical gains, we step into an evolving horizon of collective invention, deepening both our interpretive range and ethical footing. Bureaucracies and crowds might obsess over quick transactions, but an emancipated vantage redefines worth in light of collaboration that yields fresh meaning.


Social skills are not about tactical submission, but the art of strategic co-intelligence. Many conflate social adeptness with compliance, smoothing one’s edges to avoid conflict. Yet from a radical vantage, human interaction becomes a workshop for higher-order thinking—an environment where each participant retains personal freedom while contributing to a broader current of co-intelligent alignment. This contrasts starkly with shallow group appeasement. Instead, it respects moral lines and partial frameworks that permit adaptive, rather than manipulative, interactions—a vision far removed from mechanical politeness or forced niceties.


There is no ‘common good’ in a static sense of being and having—only a common potential that must first be emancipated. The phrase “common good” often dissolves into rhetoric, forcibly shaped by whichever faction holds the microphone. A radical vantage, however, perceives something more fluid: an evolving domain of possibility that only emerges once illusions—whether crowds or bureaucracies—stop choking interpretive space. That so-called “good” is not a final possession but a latent power, realized only when individuals merge their autonomy in a process of shared, ongoing discovery.


What matters is not what we control but what we enable. Apparatuses and collective impulses often seek control, issuing edicts or saturating discourse with rigid uniformity. The emancipated orientation instead emphasizes enabling—expanding moral and interpretive horizons, clearing room for novelty to appear, and generating the conditions for long-term transformations. Even small interventions—unexpected re-interpretations, quiet moral stands—can ripple through time, outlasting any short-lived wave that seeks immediate obedience.


Who rules the world, you don’t want to know. But the more autonomous your being, the greater your share in that power. The query “Who rules?” can devolve into conspiracies or oversimplifications. The real realization is that personal sovereignty grows hand in hand with deepened interpretive clarity. Each subject who resists ephemeral dictates or ossified frameworks acquires the power to reconfigure illusions from inside. Neither fleeting outcry nor unwieldy structures can fully absorb that vantage once it multiplies across liberated minds. In this sense, true mastery lies in a progressive unfolding of free will—constantly refined, never fully given over to static scripts or mass passions.


At heart, these reflections converge on a handful of recurring themes:

  • Creation transcends mere transactional logic.

  • Co-intelligence supersedes shallow social maneuvering.

  • Common potential outstrips the static notion of a “common good.”

  • Enabling replaces controlling as the essence of lasting influence.

  • Autonomy remains the bedrock of genuine agency.


Their presence in a single tapestry underscores the radical orientation that has shaped this essay: illusions may appear colossal, but they fade when enough subjects coalesce around interpretive freedom. Waves of short-lived fervor or authoritarian pronouncements, however loud, eventually recede, leaving an unbound horizon to those who stand firm in evolving autonomy.


Selected References


  • Buber, Martin (1923). Ich und Du. Berlin: Schocken

  • Arendt, Hannah (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Le Bon, Gustave (1895). The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

  • Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

  • Kierkegaard, Søren (1847). The Crowd Is Untruth. (Published as an essay/pamphlet; multiple reprints.)

  • Maturana, Humberto R., & Varela, Francisco J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living.Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  • Rand, Ayn (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House.

  • Tsvasman, Leon (2023). The Age of Sapiocracy. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

  • Weil, Simone (1947). Gravity and Grace. London: Routledge.

Comments


©2024 Dr. Leon Tsvasman

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
bottom of page