Rule of the Wicked Kind: the Predation of Empathy
What does it mean to be kind? Kindle readers are linked to the third edition of the American Oxford Dictionary:
Who doesn't aim to be kind in his endeavors? A killer can justify his acts as removing harmful people or those impeding good. Perhaps he is eliminating one immune from justice who is a rapacious thief or one blocking reforms that will lift millions from poverty or disease. Even a thief stealing to benefit himself from an innocent and just man can rationalize his acts as training his mark to better guard against future thieves: better he learn the lesson from me who only took a little, so a future thief doesn't take even more from him.
Kindness focusses on the intent of the actor more than the result of the action: "having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature." If a woman cooks a meal of religiously-forbidden meats for another, unknowingly, she may view her act as kind. The recipient of the meal may be of a certain religion and take offense. But most reasonable people will excuse the offense and look to the positive intent, unless the consequences of that attempted kindness are dire.
Difference in perception of what is kind versus what is offensive is a common riff used in sitcoms, as, usually, a bumbling husband or boyfriend indulges himself with a self-serving failed attempt at kindness for his wife or girlfriend, who must undo the damage of the incompetent or offensive attempt.
Wicked Rule
How can the wicked, those who manipulate behavior through deception [*1], weaponize kindness to assert rule?
People have natural inclinations to (1) take the path of least resistance to their goals and (2) do good for others. The wicked won't aggressively assert their will upon their subjects. Less conflict ensues if people can be convinced to go along with proposed rules. When convincing fails, the wicked may still never revert to force, since, even if the odds of victory favor the wicked, ever-vigilant and tactically-dynamic force is needed to maintain control (and for how long?). The wicked are patient and will continuously try new means of convincing until something works.
Convincing can involve incentives like paying people, but how long can that last? Material purpose brings fleeting happiness; whereas justice as purpose is more-foundational happiness [*2]. Justice is the aim of goodness and kindness, giving people what they deserve: punishment to the bad and reward to the good. Sports and movies entertain us, because we empathize with the struggle of players and characters to make the undeserving lose and the deserving win. Companionship at sporting events and nights out at movies together brings us happiness, because most of us want to hear and share good news in our life struggles, or at least offer and receive emotional comfort for bad news to mitigate suffering.
As long as an illusion of justice can be accepted and maintained in the public's purview, and popular directives are suggested toward it, most subjects will abide by that suggestion. Bribes and financial rewards grant temporary fealty, an amateurish lever of control. But, if the wicked redefine justice to align with their desired objectives, control lasts as the long as the illusion does.
Material pleasures are more finite, as money buys only so many things and flavor has limited variety. But justice can be reoriented and inverted infinitely by rulers, bringing infinite means of satisfaction in countless varieties. It was once "just" to return an escaped slave to his "rightful owner." It's now "just" to memorialize a man who put a gun to a pregnant woman's belly and threatened her. When irrational "justice" is incessantly promoted in the media and by our rulers, we know it's done to manipulate behavior toward the goals of the rulers and has little to do with actual goodness or kindness.
Whether it's just to stone a gay man or bring your children to cross-dresser story time at the library, as long as acts of the public are distracted from corruption of their rulers and/or oriented toward acts that benefit their rulers in some way, the orientation of justice doesn't particularly matter, as long as the ends of the rulers are achieved.
Empathy as Prey
To manipulate the public in powerful western countries' orientation toward justice, the wicked will focus on those who can feel something of the suffering of others, hypothetical or real. From the view of the wicked, acts of raising others' station in life are inferior to acts that alleviate suffering, since some feel jealousy toward those whose happiness is raised from 5 to 10 in a way they wouldn't for a 0-to-5 raise. Thus, the wicked will prey upon people's natural desire to be seen as helping alleviate suffering.
The wicked need (1) victims to be assisted and (2) an act to alleviate suffering of those victims. Logically, we identify harm and then create a solution to fix the harm. For the wicked, this is inverted. They first choose the behaviors they wish their subjects to engage or disengage in that align with their goals. Then, they find harms to conflate with a lack of their desired behaviors. The behaviors are then disguised as the solution to the harm.
The primary goal of the wicked is rule [*3], and the larger the jurisdiction, the better. Ultimately, a global government is desired. Thus, government power must always expand and consolidate. Local authorities must concede control to increasing layers of international ones. International agreements are promoted, especially when governing bodies between nations can be established.
Once the wicked establish rule over the broadest jurisdiction possible, they then push the boundaries of their power. Ultimate power is proportional to the how arbitrary an authority can be with its rule. The wicked seek to make their subjects concede to fleeting irrational demands; and, if subjects concede willingly and happily, all the better.
To establish control, the wicked will myopically focus on the behaviors they wish the public to adopt.
People will supposedly become "climate migrants" as the sea levels rise due to "climate change." Thus, we must (1) accept migrants into our countries and (2) establish a system of taxes and credits on carbon emissions, preferably coordinated internationally. We're not allowed to discuss whether harmful "climate change" is occurring, whether the perceived harm is actually harmful, or even whether human action can mitigate the harm. Instead, discussion focuses on how quickly we should move toward global governance for control of energy and the destruction of nations. The "conservative" argues for proceeding slower; the "progressive" argues for proceeding faster. We still proceed.
Guns result in some unjust killings. Guns can be moved across jurisdictions. Thus, we must apply regulations to guns of increasingly-broader jurisdiction, preferably coordinated internationally. We're not allowed to discuss the cost-benefit of guns being used in crime versus preventing crime or how a lack of guns allows unjust rule to be maintained without physical resistance. Instead, discussion focuses on how quickly we should add regulations of broader jurisdictional scope. Conservatives argue against new regulations, rarely arguing to repeal old ones. Progressives argue for accelerating the jurisdictional scope and scale of firearm prohibitions. We still proceed with more regulation.
Influenza pandemics kill. People can supposedly have and spread pathogens without realizing it ("asymptomatic spreaders"). Therefore, all around the world must wear masks and be perpetually revaccinated in exchange for the privilege of public travel and employment. We're not allowed to discuss other non-vaccine-related medical solutions, let alone the scope and seriousness of the "pandemic" or the cost-benefit analysis of the harm (a 99.95% survival rate conceded by the CDC for most) versus the "cure" (lockdowns, masks, and vaccines). Instead, discussion focuses on how quickly everyone can be vaccinated and what prohibitions on refusal to cooperate should be imposed. "Conservatives" argue that private businesses can mandate vaccines but that government should be more careful in forcing people into vaccination. Progressives argue government should force people to be vaccinated for the greater good. We still proceed with more and more vaccination as the "cure," at the expense of alternate treatment.
Compliance to rules, especially irrational ones, is stronger when subjects comply out of kindness as opposed to fear of punishment. To successfully manipulate behavior requires manipulation of empathy. Thus, the wicked's focus will not be as comically-outward as we see in kid's cartoons or grandiose as we see in action-movie plots.
The wicked are patient and sinister. You are to be made willfully complaint with evil. But you will see evil as the new kindness and the old kindness as the new evil. First, the wicked corrupt empathy. Then, empathy is used to control you. Critical thinking is not allowed; your rulers will think for you. For those that fail to think critically [*4] or are incapable of it, wicked rule is all too easy.
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/what-is-wicked.html
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-malaise-of-justice-what-makes.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/05/how-would-you-know-if-world-was-ruled.html
[*4] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/evidence-in-long-shadow-of-civilization.html
Who doesn't aim to be kind in his endeavors? A killer can justify his acts as removing harmful people or those impeding good. Perhaps he is eliminating one immune from justice who is a rapacious thief or one blocking reforms that will lift millions from poverty or disease. Even a thief stealing to benefit himself from an innocent and just man can rationalize his acts as training his mark to better guard against future thieves: better he learn the lesson from me who only took a little, so a future thief doesn't take even more from him.
Kindness focusses on the intent of the actor more than the result of the action: "having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature." If a woman cooks a meal of religiously-forbidden meats for another, unknowingly, she may view her act as kind. The recipient of the meal may be of a certain religion and take offense. But most reasonable people will excuse the offense and look to the positive intent, unless the consequences of that attempted kindness are dire.
Difference in perception of what is kind versus what is offensive is a common riff used in sitcoms, as, usually, a bumbling husband or boyfriend indulges himself with a self-serving failed attempt at kindness for his wife or girlfriend, who must undo the damage of the incompetent or offensive attempt.
Wicked Rule
How can the wicked, those who manipulate behavior through deception [*1], weaponize kindness to assert rule?
People have natural inclinations to (1) take the path of least resistance to their goals and (2) do good for others. The wicked won't aggressively assert their will upon their subjects. Less conflict ensues if people can be convinced to go along with proposed rules. When convincing fails, the wicked may still never revert to force, since, even if the odds of victory favor the wicked, ever-vigilant and tactically-dynamic force is needed to maintain control (and for how long?). The wicked are patient and will continuously try new means of convincing until something works.
Convincing can involve incentives like paying people, but how long can that last? Material purpose brings fleeting happiness; whereas justice as purpose is more-foundational happiness [*2]. Justice is the aim of goodness and kindness, giving people what they deserve: punishment to the bad and reward to the good. Sports and movies entertain us, because we empathize with the struggle of players and characters to make the undeserving lose and the deserving win. Companionship at sporting events and nights out at movies together brings us happiness, because most of us want to hear and share good news in our life struggles, or at least offer and receive emotional comfort for bad news to mitigate suffering.
As long as an illusion of justice can be accepted and maintained in the public's purview, and popular directives are suggested toward it, most subjects will abide by that suggestion. Bribes and financial rewards grant temporary fealty, an amateurish lever of control. But, if the wicked redefine justice to align with their desired objectives, control lasts as the long as the illusion does.
Material pleasures are more finite, as money buys only so many things and flavor has limited variety. But justice can be reoriented and inverted infinitely by rulers, bringing infinite means of satisfaction in countless varieties. It was once "just" to return an escaped slave to his "rightful owner." It's now "just" to memorialize a man who put a gun to a pregnant woman's belly and threatened her. When irrational "justice" is incessantly promoted in the media and by our rulers, we know it's done to manipulate behavior toward the goals of the rulers and has little to do with actual goodness or kindness.
Whether it's just to stone a gay man or bring your children to cross-dresser story time at the library, as long as acts of the public are distracted from corruption of their rulers and/or oriented toward acts that benefit their rulers in some way, the orientation of justice doesn't particularly matter, as long as the ends of the rulers are achieved.
Empathy as Prey
To manipulate the public in powerful western countries' orientation toward justice, the wicked will focus on those who can feel something of the suffering of others, hypothetical or real. From the view of the wicked, acts of raising others' station in life are inferior to acts that alleviate suffering, since some feel jealousy toward those whose happiness is raised from 5 to 10 in a way they wouldn't for a 0-to-5 raise. Thus, the wicked will prey upon people's natural desire to be seen as helping alleviate suffering.
The wicked need (1) victims to be assisted and (2) an act to alleviate suffering of those victims. Logically, we identify harm and then create a solution to fix the harm. For the wicked, this is inverted. They first choose the behaviors they wish their subjects to engage or disengage in that align with their goals. Then, they find harms to conflate with a lack of their desired behaviors. The behaviors are then disguised as the solution to the harm.
The primary goal of the wicked is rule [*3], and the larger the jurisdiction, the better. Ultimately, a global government is desired. Thus, government power must always expand and consolidate. Local authorities must concede control to increasing layers of international ones. International agreements are promoted, especially when governing bodies between nations can be established.
Once the wicked establish rule over the broadest jurisdiction possible, they then push the boundaries of their power. Ultimate power is proportional to the how arbitrary an authority can be with its rule. The wicked seek to make their subjects concede to fleeting irrational demands; and, if subjects concede willingly and happily, all the better.
To establish control, the wicked will myopically focus on the behaviors they wish the public to adopt.
People will supposedly become "climate migrants" as the sea levels rise due to "climate change." Thus, we must (1) accept migrants into our countries and (2) establish a system of taxes and credits on carbon emissions, preferably coordinated internationally. We're not allowed to discuss whether harmful "climate change" is occurring, whether the perceived harm is actually harmful, or even whether human action can mitigate the harm. Instead, discussion focuses on how quickly we should move toward global governance for control of energy and the destruction of nations. The "conservative" argues for proceeding slower; the "progressive" argues for proceeding faster. We still proceed.
Guns result in some unjust killings. Guns can be moved across jurisdictions. Thus, we must apply regulations to guns of increasingly-broader jurisdiction, preferably coordinated internationally. We're not allowed to discuss the cost-benefit of guns being used in crime versus preventing crime or how a lack of guns allows unjust rule to be maintained without physical resistance. Instead, discussion focuses on how quickly we should add regulations of broader jurisdictional scope. Conservatives argue against new regulations, rarely arguing to repeal old ones. Progressives argue for accelerating the jurisdictional scope and scale of firearm prohibitions. We still proceed with more regulation.
Influenza pandemics kill. People can supposedly have and spread pathogens without realizing it ("asymptomatic spreaders"). Therefore, all around the world must wear masks and be perpetually revaccinated in exchange for the privilege of public travel and employment. We're not allowed to discuss other non-vaccine-related medical solutions, let alone the scope and seriousness of the "pandemic" or the cost-benefit analysis of the harm (a 99.95% survival rate conceded by the CDC for most) versus the "cure" (lockdowns, masks, and vaccines). Instead, discussion focuses on how quickly everyone can be vaccinated and what prohibitions on refusal to cooperate should be imposed. "Conservatives" argue that private businesses can mandate vaccines but that government should be more careful in forcing people into vaccination. Progressives argue government should force people to be vaccinated for the greater good. We still proceed with more and more vaccination as the "cure," at the expense of alternate treatment.
Compliance to rules, especially irrational ones, is stronger when subjects comply out of kindness as opposed to fear of punishment. To successfully manipulate behavior requires manipulation of empathy. Thus, the wicked's focus will not be as comically-outward as we see in kid's cartoons or grandiose as we see in action-movie plots.
The wicked are patient and sinister. You are to be made willfully complaint with evil. But you will see evil as the new kindness and the old kindness as the new evil. First, the wicked corrupt empathy. Then, empathy is used to control you. Critical thinking is not allowed; your rulers will think for you. For those that fail to think critically [*4] or are incapable of it, wicked rule is all too easy.
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/what-is-wicked.html
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-malaise-of-justice-what-makes.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/05/how-would-you-know-if-world-was-ruled.html
[*4] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/evidence-in-long-shadow-of-civilization.html
Comments
Post a Comment