Without the real foundation and the mental equilibrium it bestows on our person, we end up in a troubled relationship with ourselves where we are constantly thrown between different sensations, our compromises with them and the different emotional states they repeat within us. The most common way for us to deal with this turbulence is to identify ourselves, through the ego, with some of our compromises in order to try to create an ideal and lasting peace of mind with artificial or self-preserving hostile means that rest on the insecurity we feel in relation to the independence our psyche shows towards us. It is often out of this anxiety that we bring forth those we want to lead us. We want them to give us a peace of mind and deliver us from that within us that we have to face in solitude and within ourselves. But what often happens is quite the opposite. If I were an authoritarian person, a foreign leader who had developed these defenses to my inner life, a head of state, or the head of a political group or organization of any kind, and wanted to break down my own or any other country and its society and transform it so that nothing questions me or the liberation from what I seek within me, I would consciously or unconsciously try to find someone in it with a traumatic emotionally nonexistent, psychologically absent and therefore distorted relationship with their father figure within us, and with a desire for revenge against the society and the institutions he represents when not separated from a real person, and to whom our person never felt like belonging to due to a psychopathic human father’s emotional and psychological distance and ignorance, the belittling attitude it had towards our person, and the feeling of inadequacy and rejection it created in him. Then, in the background, I would provide that person with the support and resources he needs to reach its highest political elite and then destroy it from within. By humiliating their public officials, disregarding laws and regulations and use them for personal purposes, dismantling and dissolving it economically, militarily and politically from there. But do it under the guise of doing it for the good of others with grandiose and hopeless projects, and with the help of the groups that share his trauma. Because they would think he is doing it to bring order to things, when in fact he is the one creating the havoc. He should also continuously use national sentiment and patriotism as a means and argument to get the majority to agree to it and blame independent thinking and all forms of dissentent for it. That person would then be my best friend. Together with everyone who shares this father complex. Whether it is openly staged in front of everyone around us, or is suppressed and is something that someone else has to act out in our place when we submit to the roles we play for the meaning this complex has within us, as it is unknown and something that is in its raw and conditioned state within us. That is why I assume that an understanding of the real experience of the inner person’s relationship to a father figure in a traditional sense, the cultural expression of the creative source within us, is so important in its intermediary capacity and only indirectly belonging to our real fathers. We will acquire many substitutes for it, in many men regardless of our gender, as models or prototypes for many different situations until we realize that they all have the same origin within us in common. But as long as it has not been made conscious, we lose our real inner connection to people and to the collective context that surrounds us and we are part of.