Sunday 4 February 2024

Purposively destructive evil works like a perfect covert operation

A great advantage of that intentionally destructive, spiteful, "Sorathic" evil which characterizes the current Western national leadership class; is its covert nature. 

Because everybody is always trying to make sense of what are merely destructive impulse; and in doing so, people come up with multiple and incompatible theories concerning what positive goals They are trying to achieve. 

And - ultimately - all these theories are wrong! 

For instance; more Western people have (eventually) begun to notice that their rulers are puppets operated by multinational and foreign agents; and have noticed that these rulers are allowing and abetting the invasion of their nations by colossal numbers of foreigners. 

Having noticed what is going-on; people try to understand it in terms of what benefits (whether short-, medium, or long-term) are expected to accrue to a variety of persons and groups as a consequence of massive influxes of "aliens". 

This results in many and competing theories - each theory claiming that somebody different is behind the invasion; and each of these rival malicious actors is striving to get something from a range of benefits such as wealth, power, status, sex etc.  

Public opinion then fractures into rival theorists, with rival plans of how to combat the putative groups and prevent them getting... whatever it is that They intend to gain from the mass invasion of the West. 

However; if it is true that what is being aimed-at by those who are ultimately responsible for the invasion of the West at is simply the destruction of the West (its civilization, institutions, people etc.); and that the primary motivation is not gain but instead the spiteful gratification of those responsible -- then all these theories are irrelevant; even when a theory may be partially correct for some people, at some level.

Meanwhile; the work of destruction proceeds unimpeded, invisible, undetected.


Ron Tomlinson said...

[Bruce, this is long but I hope it's relevant to recent posts including by Francis Berger. Helpful for me to write anyhow (and I've saved it).]

As mammals we are endowed with emotions and I assume that they all have legitimate functions. According to the late Jaak Panksepp they are:

Rage, lust, fear, seeking, panic, nurturance, play.

So, while it's useful to say that fear is a sin, it is really sustained and cultivated fear which is sinful.

FEAR has a legitimate function. Say I am crossing the road and I realise I've made a mistake and am now in danger. A stab of fear alerts me and gives me the energy to extricate myself from the situation and avoid the danger. Then the fear dissipates.

LUST has a legitimate function between man and wife. Generally speaking a husband should not objectify his wife but *in the moment of the sex act* isn't it logical to do so? It is cultivated and over-indulged lust which is the sin I think.

Human beings are capable of more complex emotions which are compositions of the 7 primary emotions above, or applications of them in unusual directions. For example, a perversion is LUST directed toward an unusual object (perhaps even an imaginary object).

Another example. If a mother places an obstacle between her child and his toy for whatever reason he may experience RAGE. There is now a conflict between RAGE and ANXIETY (threat of separation from caregiver; he can't destroy his mum). This conflict can be reduced by directing the rage inwardly as GUILT.

Anyhow, what I wanted to get to was the feelings which generate Sorathic evil, namely resentment and spite. I assume that SPITE is cultivated rage directed against a false impediment or scapegoat.

Spiteful Saruman believes that Gandalf is responsible for his downfall, whereas actually Gandalf was merely the instrument of justice.

In concluding I want to conjecture that any emotion which is sustained deliberately is harmful and at least runs the risk of becoming sinful. Even curiosity (SEEKING) can lead to sterile obsession or addiction. This ought to be unsurprising since the role of all feeling is to bring the organism back into balance.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Ron - Well, I'm not a fan of listing "sins" in any ultimate discussion of what sin is - ultimately Christian sin is death (IV Gospel) as contrasted with resurrected eternal life in Heaven - and from that sin is what causes the rejection of resurrection (see The Great Divorce, in another of today's posts).

You may be following the Ancient Greek idea (Aristotle?) that virtue is a medium between two extremes, that any virtue becomes a sin when pursues excessively or exclusively...

Well, okay; but that is an idea that has no traction in our culture - none at all. People are often sacked, imprisoned (even sometimes killed with impunity) for supposed/ subjectively-experienced micro-aggressions, for a single taboo word. A world where transgressing woke "rights" is treated as a worse act than rape. Moderation does not get a look-in where there is zero-tolerance for "hate".

But it is worth listing the besetting sins of this time and culture - because these are positively encouraged and used as weapons in the spiritual war. Most people don't even realize that fear is a sin - existential fear: - and this is a big problem when fear is being used top-down and in a strategic manner as an instrument of mass damnation.

When I harp on the themes that fear is a sin, my intention is to make people recognize what is being done to them, on an hourly basis.

(Resentment is the other undetected besetting sin - being the basis of most of leftism, leftism being the basis of totalitarianism and the Global Establishment).

Ron Tomlinson said...

@Bruce, I listed the basic emotions, not sins, though I do see now that confusingly 'lust' is both an emotion and a sin (of the traditional seven-deadly-sins variety).

I agree that listing sins is unhelpful because it is the underlying motivations which count and these are practically unlimited in number.

My intention was to help make sense of various posts here and elsewhere.

I don't think particular emotions are virtuous or sinful but that the uniquely human ability to sustain them for bad purposes may be at the root of many sins.

Thus, cultivating fear, rage or lust in oneself or others is bad. I think you agree because I'm familiar with how you identify existential fear as a sin, and I agree that it is used as an instrument of mass damnation. The powers-that-be tried to cultivate fear in us with lock-downs. Pornography is freely allowed and freely viewed in order to cultivate lust. And so on.

By the way the authorities may have even tried to cultivate other types of feeling, such as *hunger* in North America, many believe. The inflammed and super-stimulated form of hunger is of course gluttony. Hunger isn't an emotion but it is another kind of feeling, with a homeostatic function. Hunger isn't a sin, but gluttony is.

It may be that there are good motives for evoking and sustaining certain emotions, by exhortatory prayer for example. So I'm not yet convinced by my conjecture above. On the other hand the intention of such prayer may be to try to reverse the wicked kind of cultivation, in which case the conjecture stands.