See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: The Necessity of Enemies
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 20, 2008
Author: Bob Wallace
Post Date: 2008-11-20 18:01:29 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 557
Comments: 17
Every tribe in the world, past, present, and I guarantee you future, has referred to itself as "the Humans" or "the People" or "the Chosen," defining itself as human and relegating those outside the tribe to non-human and non-people status. The Chinese called China "the Middle Kingdom" (the middle of the Earth) and the Greeks called their local sea the Mediterranean (also the middle of the Earth). Not at all surprisingly, the Greeks called non-Greeks "barbarians," mocking the way they perceived their language ("bar bar bar bar"). The curious predilection of people to do these things is not only caused by our primitive instinct to form tribes (be they called nations, races or ethnic groups) but also by our narcissism, which in simplest terms can be defined as another instinct to divide the world into false but easily understood categories of Good and Evil. Tribes not only define themselves as "the Humans," but also as good, thereby automatically defining Outsiders not only as non-human but also as evil. Unfortunately, it is a necessary thing to see Outsiders as both non-human and evil. In other words, enemies are necessary, and have to be created even when none are there! When a tribe defines itself as good, the vast majority of members will never admit its imperfections. As such, those imperfections have to be cast elsewhere, and that elsewhere, of course, is the Outsider. The extraordinarily small amount of people who do see the tribe's flaws, the tribe will attempt to expel. Then they become Outsiders. The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called this casting of imperfections onto others "scapegoating," and defined it as "the genesis of human evil." When people see themselves as good, of course they have to project their badness elsewhere, onto someone else. It's the first defense people engage in, and it's even the lesson of the story of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam blames Eve for his transgression, and Eve turns right around and blames the serpent. This projection is just about the first thing children do. What parent has not heard, "You/he/she made me do it?" And what parent will ever hear from a four-year-old, "Yes, I did it of my own free will, and I take responsibility for it"? No tribe, in its self-defined grandiosity, will ever admit its mistakes, unless absolutely forced to. People will rationalize and make excuses like there's no end to it. Actually, there is no end to it. It's always going to be someone else's fault, and once "those people" are eradicated, then there will be "an end to evil." That phrase, "an end to evil"? It's the title of a propaganda book by David Frum and Richard Perle. They describe the U.S. as the greatest force for good in the world today, and pretty much everyone outside the U.S. as evil . . . so they have to be eradicated. See how it works? The U.S. -- a tribe, of course -- is composed of "the People" and those outside the U.S. are not only non-people (although the term "collateral damage" is used) but evil. The U.S. has done a great amount of good in the world, but it has also done horrendous evil. How many Americans are aware that when American troops invaded the Philippines in the late 1800s they killed up to 200,000 Filipinos? I'll tell you how many -- almost no one. And of those who do know, I've had some defend it, just the way they defend the fire-bombing of the non-military, undefended city of Dresden at the end of WWII. I repeat: people will defend anything to support their tribe, even if it’s indefensible. I'm also going to repeat that since tribes consider themselves both "the People" and good, and their badness is always projected elsewhere, this means there must always be enemies. The tribe has to have enemies to maintain its fiction of "goodness." If tribes can't create enemies to project their imperfections onto, then it's possible the tribe can't maintain its cohesiveness. If a tribe can maintain the fiction that only it is "Human" or "Chosen," and consistently define Outsiders as non-human and evil, and who are attacking the tribe, then it's entirely possible the tribe can endure for thousands of years, as long as it can create enemies. Rene Girard, the late French scholar who studied the mechanism of tribes, scapegoating and sacrifices, noticed the curious phenomena that when one tribe displaces another, the displaced tribe, being both scapegoated and sacrificed, thereby becomes "sacred." An example of this is the American settler's annihilation of the American Indians, who even now are considered "sacred," hence the fact that so many sports teams -- and military equipment -- are named after them. Since all tribes attempt to scapegoat and sacrifice other tribes, this means a minority tribe being tolerated by the majority tribe will attempt to denigrate the majority tribe, and even try to get the majority tribe to denigrate itself, through guilt. This is why there are vicious attacks on "dead white males" and Western culture. It's an attempt by minority tribes to displace the majority tribe. It's why there exists such things as La Raza ("the race"), whose motto is, "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing." They have to have an enemy on whom they can blame their problems; otherwise there wouldn't be any "La Raza." Enemies need each other, and feed off of each other. As one tribe after another is annihilated, what is left for a scapegoat and a sacrifice? Someone will always be found. That is why there will never be an "end to evil." It's always what happens when the tribe -- the group -- is considered more important than the individual. Even if everyone in the world belonged to the same tribe, the same race, the same ethnic group, and spoke the same language, a scapegoat and a sacrifice will still be found, because someone has to be found to project imperfections onto. This "we're good and human" and "you're evil and non-human" just might be the worst problem ever. It's what led Germans protecting "the Fatherland" to fight Russians protecting "the Motherland," culminating in the Battle of Stalingrad, a horrendous slaughter in which one million to two million people were killed. This dichotomy has even infected and perverted religion, and has for a long time. Islam divides the world into "the House of Submission" and "the House of War." Guess who's human and good, and who isn't? If this isn't crazy, what is? Christianity has done the same thing. The nutcase Christian Zionists infesting the U.S. think they can bring Jesus back by murdering Palestinians and Muslims. "We're the good Christians, so we have to project our evil onto the Palestinians and Muslims, who have to be eradicated so goodness can reign." Again, if this isn't crazy, then what is? The Zionists in the administration have the same problem as the Christians. They've been able to hijack U.S. foreign policy, thanks to George Bush and the deluded Christian Zionists who support them. They're now sacrificing U.S. troops to defend Israel. It sure sounds to me like they consider U.S. troops to be expendable, that is, non-human. Of course, once soldiers are sacrificed, then they are idealized for making "the ultimate sacrifice" and become "sacred," just as Girard suggested. If they refuse to be sacrificed, then they become scapegoats ("Get out of the country, you coward!"). If they consent to be sacrificed, then they are sent to fight other scapegoats in the form of the enemy. Either way, soldiers are either devalued scapegoats or idealized sacrifices for their tribe. They're not seen as individuals. There are ways out of these problems, any of which I doubt will ever be implemented. You can get rid of tribes, which I doubt is feasible, since it has never been done in the past. You can get rid of our narcissism, the concept that we are the good humans and those outside the tribe are non-human and evil. I doubt that is possible, either. You can change the common concept of good and evil, and cease to see it as good over here and bad over there, with nothing in-between. In reality good and evil are a continuum, and not two mutually exclusive categories. This seems to be at least a possibility. You can get rid of the concept of "evil" altogether. Probably the best definition of "evil" that exists is what the Greeks called hubris, and the Bible "pride": thinking you are god-like, or the Chosen, or the only humans on the planet. It leads inexorably to Outsiders being deemed as non-human and evil. It sure looks to me that what most people see as "good" and "evil" are instead a continuum from humility to hubris. I'd like to see someone come up with a definition of evil that couldn't be applied to anyone for any reason, thereby devaluing them into non-humans. But what I do know is this: as long as we are tribal, and narcissistic, and divide people into good and evil, human and non-human, sacrifices and scapegoats, we must always create enemies in order to maintain our tribes, our narcissism, and our belief we are good and others are evil. Orwell would have understood this.
Poster Comment: I prefer dogs to people, and no wonder why.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Turtle, All (#0)
This should be required reading. It's the best article I have read anywhere in quite some time. It explains why I am an outsider.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
This Wallace guy is brilliant, snicker.
Turtle's secret Indian name is Two Stuck Dogs.
You dont agree? I thought it was excellent. Where did he go wrong?
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Turtle = Bob Wallace.
Turtle's secret Indian name is Two Stuck Dogs.
LMFAO! Brilliant!!!!!!!!
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
This article sheds light upon a dark subject. Murder is murder regardless of the perpetrator. (Not including self-defense). Somehow most Americans think it's OK when America does it. I think sometimes people confuse Biblical Scholarship with Christianity ... nothing could be further from the TRUTH.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
I'm written about 350 articles for various publications, and lots of them are about the badness of human nature. Yet, I'm not anything like that in real life, and most people find me amusing. Except, of course, for those who hate me.
Turtle's secret Indian name is Two Stuck Dogs.
Come back when you have a cure for male pattern baldness.
Another home-run essay, Turt - thanks.
a truism
Rub dog feces on your head every day for one year. Rinse and repeat.
Turtle's secret Indian name is Two Stuck Dogs.
Certainly good and evil may constitute a continuum but they are still good and evil. They are actions by people which either harm or help. To the degree some action helps, or hinders in survival of the individual, the family, the group, humanity, all living things, and lifts us to greater heights spiritually we can classify an action, a thought, a concept etc., as either good or evil. Good and Evil may well be on a continuum but it is a matter of degree. There are greater and lesser "goods" as well as greater and lesser "evils". So, we can rationally expand this to say that any action which aids in the direction of good, if only slightly, is on balance good and likewise anything which tilts, however slightly, in the direction of evil is evil. The more an action travels either toward good or evil is the magnitude of the good or evil, but does change what it is. Thus an action which raises all and aids all life could be seem as a near ultimate good, and an action which destroys all as ultimate evil. Thus we have pleasure and pain. That which brings about good gives us pleasure and that which, on balance, brings evil ultimately brings pain. One can test this for one's self- does helping another make you feel "goood"? Does hurting another make you feel "good"? For the sane mind helping another brings pleasure and hurting brings pain. Thus we can compare to our own experience and see what the practical result of our actions are. Thus we can see, despite it being a contiuum, that good is still good and evil still evil. With human affairs we then judge an action by an individual by what the consequences of that action are. Do they aid in the wellbeing of self or others? Does the action degrade the wellbeing of self or others? Does it create more than it destroys, or destroy more than it creates? One could posit any number of instances illustrating either end of the spectrum of good and evil, but that misses the key point - the ends of the spectrum remain unchanged. On one hand "good"; the other "evil". Sanity is being able to tell the difference.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I have so much hair on my head I'm often confused for a chia pet. I was thinking about Cyni.
Does he look like a lightbulb?
Turtle's secret Indian name is Two Stuck Dogs.
It is last end the battle of Christ against Anti Christ. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Die meiste Seite mit Anti Christus erscheint es. Most side with Anti Christ appears it.
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" Dies ist gut Die meiste Seite mit Anti Christus erscheint es. einverstanden
#2. To: PSUSA (#1)
#3. To: Turtle (#2)
snicker.
#4. To: PSUSA (#3)
You dont agree? I thought it was excellent. Where did he go wrong?
#5. To: Turtle (#4)
#6. To: Turtle (#0)
#7. To: noone222 (#6)
This article sheds light upon a dark subject.
#8. To: Turtle (#7)
#9. To: Turtle (#0)
#10. To: Turtle (#0)
In reality good and evil are a continuum, and not two mutually exclusive categories.
#11. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
Come back when you have a cure for male pattern baldness
#12. To: Turtle, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, Rotara, Scrapper2, Jethro Tull, Kamala, CadetD, farmfriend, Peppa, Tom007, richard9151, all (#0)
It sure looks to me that what most people see as "good" and "evil" are instead a continuum from humility to hubris.
#13. To: Turtle (#11)
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
I was thinking about Cyni.
#15. To: Original_Intent (#12)
Letzten Endes ist es die Schlacht von Christus gegen Anti Christus.
#16. To: Original_Intent (#12)
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#17. To: Beendigen Sie die Kommunisten (#15)
Letzten Endes ist es die Schlacht von Christus gegen Anti Christus.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest