Friday, February 24, 2012

Where do the bad people come from?

Where do they come from?  The killers; the wicked men.  If you're stuck in early stages, you might think of them as just Hitler, or just FDR, or just Truman, or just Dubya, or just Obama, or just Oliver North.  And so on.

Where do these men, and the people who follow them, come from?  Do they say, "I wish to be evil; come, join me and be evil"?

Do they say, "I wish to be good," but secretly think, "I wish to be evil"?

Not often.  They tend to come not just manifesting rightness and goodness, but actually believing in it themselves.  Though their subconscious minds may torment them, they do not directly, to themselves, think, "I am evil and I kill people when I do not have to," in the way that we might imagine Obama/Bush/Hitler does/did.

To believe otherwise--to believe in many, many humans, or all or most of them, making the conscious decision to be evil--is the deadly mistake of the Torah and monotheism: original sin.  A sad humor, which will be expounded upon later, is that the modern religion of atheism and/or "science" adopts essentially this same principle.

Humans are evil.  Humans are misguided, inherently evil, selfish entities which must be governed in some way to be good.  For Judeo-Christians, this became the Bible, the ten commandments, God, etc.  For the modern atheist/scientist, it becomes an enlightened neo-liberal governance based on scientific principles, educated democracy, and essentially the same things under different names.  Western "anarchism" is working out its own policy platforms right now, being otherwise composed simply of rejecting current power relations.

The underlying belief that humans are bad is a poison pill that will pervert any ideology.  Even as many rail against the murders of Obama, they do so on the basis that Obama--Obama the human being--is inherently evil, and that other elites like him are inherently evil.  They may combat Obama and the rich filth like him; they may overthrow them in generations, and create different orders to take their place.

But the seed will survive into the new world, like so many of Lord Darcia's lost eyes: the belief that what was conquered was an evil person (or evil group), rather than a person channeling evil, lays the groundwork for a new horror, though it be a thousand years in the making.  For if people can be evil, what do they deserve but evil?

If people can be evil, the only people who should be your friends are those who agree with you right now.  If someone says something new, different and troublesome, they are against you.  If people can be evil, they cannot really be good--and the one doing that thinking is a person.  So confidence in the self, as well as the kin and the species and the flow at large, is lost.  In order to be anything worthwhile, people feel they must be surrounded by those who agree with them.  In the company of those who feel as they do, people are reassured that something, at least, is right.

When someone deviates--when someone does not seem to need that reassurance--it is frightening.  It mocks the subconscious desire for free association, and itches the well-lit forefront of the mind.  The lonely become the depressed and the social desperately attempt to prove how unified and intelligent they all are together.

The bad people--the creators of the world's horrors--are always and ever just yet another group who thinks they are right; thinks they are making the prudent, tough choices; thinks their enemies are not worth listening to, because you have to get things done.

As Twain spoke, Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).  Those who cannot--those who cling only to the familiar--are commonly known to us.  They belong to political parties and clubs of all stripes and levels of power: associations based not on inclusion, but on exclusion, limiting people by affiliation into subsets of humanity, where information may not be exchanged or challenged.  Lalalala, I can't hear you!  They seek the familiar, rather than new horizons.  And they have no to little time for outsiders, except when forced.

God bless America.

1 comment:

  1. "For Judeo-Christians, this became the Bible, the ten commandments, God, etc. For the modern atheist/scientist, it becomes an enlightened neo-liberal governance based on scientific principles, educated democracy, and essentially the same things under different names. Western "anarchism" is working out its own policy platforms right now, being otherwise composed simply of rejecting current power relations."

    I think you're spot on here.

    I find it odd among otherwise intelligent people the boundless faith they put in science. Doubting remarks about "the scientific method" are more often than not met by them with blank stares.

    The same holds true for most other aspects of Enlightenment thinking, whether it be religious, political, moral, or otherwise.

    Same goes for anarchism. 'Okay pal, so you don't agree with the power structure. Why the fuck do you have to join up with yet another religion to prove it?'

    Exactly the same for atheists, who sometimes are even worse than anarchists because often they replace their former religious beliefs with a belief in science.

    In the providential event that they don't convert to the Holy Church of Modern Science, then many become snarky wise-asses.

    This not to say that there's any particular virtue in pre-Enlightenment thinking, unless of course, one wishes to profess a faith in Holy Magicians in the Sky who perform miracles and strike us down with lightning bolts when we commit sins.

    Give people a banner to follow and they'll join right up.

    ReplyDelete