The Necessity of Scapegoats and Pretence

The Necessity of Scapegoats and Pretence


When we are late for work we often blame the traffic without admitting that we too were traffic. We say a venue is too crowded at the same moment we directly serve to contribute to the crowd’s size. We say a band has sold out after they become too popular when it was us who bolstered their popularity. Whether we are trying to be dishonest with others or ourselves is unclear in these instances, but we are nonetheless forced to create a scapegoat rather than to face our own judgement.

A man once told me that the corporations and the media was the cause of the worlds ills. This was coming from a man in Nike shoes making such assertions via tweets on his iPad. To say the least, I had trouble taking him seriously. I would think that if one wanted to honestly do away with corporations and the media, he might want to cease being the corporation and media. The corporations and media exist because of the demand they are intended to supply. The money of the people isn’t stolen by these corporations, it is given them, leading to all consequences that follow. Corporations have power because we give it to them. This is the nature of the society that populism has built.

We blame the “government” rather than account for the actual people who compose it—particular human beings, not unlike ourselves, going to work and doing their jobs. They are not there to actively destroy our lives, but to make a living. Further, our leaders are voted in by you-know-who. We often disparage them for their poor choices, yet not ourselves for ours. They are the leaders because we are not, perhaps never having courage to step forward and become leaders ourselves. A Government of the people, for the people. We are that people.

We blame the “military”, which is composed of people, not unlike ourselves, doing their jobs. We blame the soldier for fighting in unjust wars when they are fighting for the soldier beside them. Militaries destroy countries to perpetuate their own. They are extensions of and composed of the everyday people of that country. Who are we blaming but ourselves? They fight because we want them to fight. We demand oil in our cars; we demand fortune; we demand the paved streets and manicured lawns; we demand the burgers, the products, the media, the security. They fight to supply that demand.

We blame "religion" as we too act according to convention and culture. We spew our dogmatism as if it was something different than mere opinion. Religion consists of everyday people, believing their opinions, and adhering to social custom, language and convention. We want to replace their truths with our own; their tastes, opinions and customs with our tastes, opinions and customs. We want them to be like us. What is this but also religion?

The worst, however, is when one speaks ill of the entire species as if he too wasn't a part of the species. Saying this is an admittance of one's guilt. Rather than account for all the beauty and art that the species is capable of, he chooses to disparage it as a whole because perhaps he considers himself incapable. Nothing could be further than the truth. No one can vindicate the species by not first vindicating himself.



Maybe that “mad Socrates” Diogenes the Cynic was right: man lives so artificially and hypocritically it would be better to study the dog, because at least the dog is honest—man lives dishonestly. Diogenes took this philosophy to such great lengths that honesty became his principle for how he conducted himself in public. He lived in a giant pot, often poking his head out to practice his cynicism like an ancient Oscar the Grouch, because he believed houses to be attachments of vain-glory and folly. He ate where he was hungry, he urinated when he had to urinate, and masturbated when he felt the need, especially in public places such as the market. Once when told not to spit in a beautiful house, Diogenes loosened up his phlegm and spat in the man’s face, “being unable, he said, to find a meaner receptacle”. He took honesty to its logical extremes. But his honesty brought him to a level of sociopathy not commonly found, but only because an honest society requires the dishonesty of its participants.

As long as the spotlight of blame never falls on us we can sit comfortable behind our veils of pretence so that we may never need to act according to how we preach. Maybe it is comfort we seek. Maybe induced ignorance fosters this comfort. Or maybe because we escape the wrath of our own judgement for fear that we too may become cynics.

reply to post by Aphorism


Are you saying you are not to blame for pointing the finger at "Scapegoats and Pretense" all the while being one yourself?

I feel your motivations may be somewhat suspect; long worded, but suspect no less

HHHMMMMMMM

Aphorism
The Necessity of Scapegoats and Pretence

 

The money of the people isn’t stolen by these corporations, it is given them, leading to all consequences that follow. Corporations have power because we give it to them. This is the nature of the society that populism has built.

Still reading but this ^^^^

In the UK if we forced the corps that evade our tax system (stealing from us) to pay up we could wipe our debt in about three years!
They have power because they buy it from our corrupt government.

We blame "religion" as we too act according to convention and culture. We spew our dogmatism as if it was something different than mere opinion. Religion consists of everyday people, believing their opinions, and adhering to social custom, language and convention. We want to replace their truths with our own; their tastes, opinions and customs with our tastes, opinions and customs. We want them to be like us. What is this but also religion?

Correct. Religion is a tool no different than politics, or a political arm, or a military arm. Often the argument comes up that "religion is responsible for our woes".

Even I am guilty of throwing this around. (Usually in jest or sarcasm.)

But religion cannot be a cause of suffering, rather than a factor that plays into human behaviour. For instance, the argument often comes up that Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, were all atheists and atheism is to blame for (X) number of atrocities.

However, the political motives of these people are to blame, but again, politics is reflection of the human behaviour controlling it.

The confusion lies within the personal motives of the person. The political arm that helps that person carry out their motives is hardly relevant. While everyone is so quick to say, "War in Iraq was for oil!" Where are we saying, "Religion is for (X)?"

Religion is a tool, as is politics, as is ______. A symptom of the cause. The cause being the person responsible for raising this political power for a means to an end. The goal of the means to an end, should be the focus. The actual means to the end is slightly irrelevant.

In fact the Pol Pot, Hitler et al. All who people try to claim are/were atheists, most either grew up under some religious doctrine, or were part of one at some time. Pol pot tried to set his people back into the stone ages, which isn't really scientific of him. (Gahh Science is the devil!)

This kind of political power infects every industry, every facet of life. Science not withstanding. Manipulated data (which is not real science) is out there rife throughout our world. Denial of facts for an agenda.

As I stated though, science, is not really science when it is manipulated like such. There must be a political arm either fudging data or controlling the outflow of information.

Politics must be greater or controlling science, for there to influence.

In this we can see the exact same applies for religion. I can form a religion tomorrow that states every man and woman is equal and must be treated as such, or that every boy under 12 should be sacrificed to the gods. The latter does not mean that all religion advocates sacrificing our children.

Just as the FDA could say stem cell therapy is the future of medicine, approving and recommending treatments to everyone immediately. If they haven't worked out the cancer issues, or the spontaneous goo forming cells, there would be a lot of dead people quite fast, and we could not say that "science" caused this, as it was obviously the opposite.

The FDA of course is not run by a single person, making it harder to throw around political weight in the agency. Not to say it couldn't be used for the wrong purpose though.


In conclusion regarding religion:

We can say, christianity is responsible for (X), but the truth is there are some churches that are of great benefit to their community along with abhorrent ones.

If you have to blame something. You could say that unfettering belief in something, that hasn't been properly vetted, is the vehicle used to allowing people manipulate large bodies into political action.

This above sentence applies to Religion, politics, military, et al.

We can say unquestioned belief into the legitimacy of government and military led to a number of wars. That the same regarding the church allowed children to be abused. That it allowed dictators and authoritarians rise to power. But none can be named as the sole destructive force, since they were all just a tool used by the people who wield them.

And in effect, the unwillingness for people to accept their place, or responsibility in society, the world. Which ties in partially to your OP.






Consumerism

So while we often look to blame science, religion, politics, military, etc. We often do not trace back the reasons any of these operate they do. If everyone in the US suddenly went out and said "we don't like the current system" and decided to compartmentalize their daily needs, creating a close knit
"hippie"-type commune, where everyone traded and bartered food and daily essentials, the current system would fold into itself.

It's not a realistic avenue, but it does shed light that consumerism et al, is not simply because a multinational decided to flood your town with crap goods built in China.

As a business owner, (small - local) I can't help but sigh every time a customer wants to give us an earful when we attempt to really please our consumer base overall. (any accusations against the company are dealt internally every time they arise in weekly meetings.) And the same person, will buy something that is either total crap, or defective, or useless, from a large corporation, but they won't do anything about it because as soon as they called they got put on hold. (Ever try to deal with microsoft customer service? There isn't any. It
s all online "group sourcing")

In essence, yes people are being manipulated, but allow themselves to be manipulated. Eventually if you want the manipulation to stop, you have to address that it is actually happening.

VoidHawk

Aphorism
The Necessity of Scapegoats and Pretence

 

The money of the people isn’t stolen by these corporations, it is given them, leading to all consequences that follow. Corporations have power because we give it to them. This is the nature of the society that populism has built.

Still reading but this ^^^^

In the UK if we forced the corps that evade our tax system (stealing from us) to pay up we could wipe our debt in about three years!
They have power because they buy it from our corrupt government.

An arbitrary notion. If you forced every corporation to "pay up" there would be no corporations. And either a new (equally arbitrary) financial system would be needed of "who owes who" until new debt is issued, or there would be a long term depression while everyone learned how to fend for themselves again at a community based level. The latter making people realize they need to be responsible for everything they do.

reply to post by Aphorism


Let me add something I came across today at:

www.truth-out.org...

A quote from the article (very good btw) quoting the anarachist Gustav Landauer:

Thus, Landauer takes the World Geist (Spirit) to mean solidarity, and he calls on humanity to work practically for liberation:

"The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; i.e., by people relating to one another differently. ... We, who have imprisoned ourselves in the absolute state, must realize the truth: we are the state! And we will be the state as long as we are nothing different; as long as we have not yet created the institutions." [1]

That said. I do believe it is a case of bi-directionaly of cause. Neither I nor the system are the cause or the effect but both are the causes and the effects together. By taking responsibility for my actions I work towards making the system more responsible and responsive (the only thing I can do as an individual), but we, the collective we, must take responsiblity for our actions in order to re-form the system.

boncho

VoidHawk

Aphorism
The Necessity of Scapegoats and Pretence

 

The money of the people isn’t stolen by these corporations, it is given them, leading to all consequences that follow. Corporations have power because we give it to them. This is the nature of the society that populism has built.

Still reading but this ^^^^

In the UK if we forced the corps that evade our tax system (stealing from us) to pay up we could wipe our debt in about three years!
They have power because they buy it from our corrupt government.

An arbitrary notion. If you forced every corporation to "pay up" there would be no corporations. And either a new (equally arbitrary) financial system would be needed of "who owes who" until new debt is issued, or there would be a long term depression while everyone learned how to fend for themselves again at a community based level. The latter making people realize they need to be responsible for everything they do.

In the uk we were at our peak just before the big corps started taking over, until then we had gotten by just fine without them. Yes we would go backwards if we booted them out now, but thats because they've set it up to be that way, but I'd rather go backwards for a while than face whats coming.

FyreByrd
reply to post by Aphorism

 

By taking responsibility for my actions I work towards making the system more responsible and responsive (the only thing I can do as an individual), but we, the collective we, must take responsiblity for our actions in order to re-form the system.

edit on 30-11-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

How can WE reform anything when theres a uniformed thug stomping on our heads if we disagree?

reply to post by VoidHawk

In the uk we were at our peak just before the big corps started taking over, until then we had gotten by just fine without them. Yes we would go backwards if we booted them out now, but thats because they've set it up to be that way, but I'd rather go backwards for a while than face whats coming.

Not really, you were at your peak, during the peak of colonialism. As far as "big corps", most have all existed before anyone was alive today. Unless you were born 1800s.

reply to post by semperfortis

Are you saying you are not to blame for pointing the finger at "Scapegoats and Pretense" all the while being one yourself?

I feel your motivations may be somewhat suspect; long worded, but suspect no less

HHHMMMMMMM

My motivations for writing are suspect?

Nowhere did I say I wasn't human. Hypocrisy is a human trait after-all.