The Psychology of Fascism - The Shadow of Victim's Mentality

[Hardkill]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's okay to call out someone's behavior as harmful as that is an accurate descriptive label that a person can actually reflect on and work on.

And it's even okay to stop people from engaging in harmful behavior through setting very firm boundaries and systems of justice that discourage people from engaging in harmful behavior.

All of these are part of wise discernment, justice, and boundary setting.

And you can get a person to reflect on their actions far better by calling them "harmful" than calling them "evil". And that's because "harmful" is a practical realistic label that is reflective of reality, while "evil" is a moral label that is ambiguous and implies something fundamentally shameful and bad about someone's nature.

When we label someone as evil, we tend to see evil as its own cause. And we paper over the root cause of those "evil" actions. And it cuts us off from unconditional compassion towards ourselves and others. And at that point, all root causes are unconscious to us... and all we can do is to try to defeat and eradicate evil... which makes us behave in an evil way.

That's the trick. The second we say the word evil, we become evil and perpetuate evil. 

So, I don't use the word evil to describe anyone or anything unless I'm specifically talking about evil as a concept.

And when we start labeling out the world in terms of the paradigm of good and evil, this is where the Devil gets us... and we feel shame.

And we either internalize that shame and feel like we are evil. Or we externalize it and name off others as the evil-doers... which has led to all sorts of wars, genocides, murder, the crusades, medieval torture, etc.

This is what happens when we believe in evil. If we believe in the paradigm of good and evil (because of a deeply engrained human bias to see ourselves as good) we start to believe that we are the "good ones" fighting the "evil ones". And this causes us to be "evil."

In the Genesis story, that is precisely why the Devil tempted Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

He knew that getting them to see the world through the moralistic lens of good and evil, would produce shame in them and cast them out of the garden... and that everything would become split apart (to Devil means to split in two, so he is responsible in this story for humanity's moralistic dualistic thinking).

And this is the original sin for that reason. And it is the MOST important sin to avoid. 

That's why it's very unwise to start labeling other people (or ourselves) out as evil as it gets into the realm of moralism, judgment, shame, scapegoating, hatred, etc. and all the evil and ignorance that comes as a result.

Instead, stick with practical realistic and descriptive understandings of pure non-judgmental discernment... like "x behavior creates y result." "Do I want y result? Yes or no?"

My ethical compass is simple.... do your best to cause as little harm as possible. And this is plenty enough to discern which actions to take without the need to get into judgment and labels of good and evil.

I made a video about this called "The Most Dangerous Archetype" where I talk all about the issue with operating through the lens of good and evil...

 

Well, we have to at least call Trump and others like him as absolute monsters and corrupt down to their core.

Edited Sunday at 06:21 AM by Hardkill

[Joshe]

@Emerald that makes sense. Swapping evil with harmful doesn’t make me feel as negative towards the thing, so I’ll contemplate that some more. That said, I have the ability to recognize the evil/harmful behavior as stemming from ignorance rather than something inherently bad in the person. I would never call a person a devil directly, because that certainly would be a moralistic attack, which would perpetuate evil. 

One issue is “harmful” lacks description. Evil or “devilry” includes ignorance and blind selfishness, which produces “harm”. “Devilry” is very specific. If we want to solve problems, we have to identify them. I suppose just using the words ignorance and blind selfishness would suffice and we can dispense with devilry. IDK, lots to consider here. 

Either way, I think your approach seems healthier for the collective and maybe even for myself. Thanks for explaining. 

[Emerald]

10 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Well, we have to at least call Trump and others like him as absolute monsters and corrupt down to their core.

No. Because then you can't see the root cause of those behaviors that Trump and other like him engage in. And that means that we can't address the real human problems that causes people to become that way.

And we start trying to fight the symptoms instead of curing the disease on the level of the germ.

Anytime you call ANYONE evil (or synonymous words like "monsters"), it always leads us into judgment and ignorance and fragmentation of ourselves... and away from truth, understanding, love, compassion, and integration.

And it becomes a cycle that perpetuates itself because we get caught up in patterns of judgment, ignorance, demonization, hatred, scapegoating, etc. instead of addressing the problems in an effective way.

The fact of the matter is that, at our core, ever single thing in the universe is whole, innocent, and loving. And it is only ignorance and suffering that lead to a fragmentation and mangling of what is purely benevolent and loving.

And if we label someone as monstrous "to their core", it is ignorant because it is totally antithetical to the truth of unconditional love that undergirds all things. And it causes us to go into a state of ignorance, judgment, fragmentation, and shame as we judge the other person as evil. And we become "evil" in our ignorance.

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, Joshe said:

@Emerald that makes sense. Swapping evil with harmful doesn’t make me feel as negative towards the thing, so I’ll contemplate that some more. That said, I have the ability to recognize the evil/harmful behavior as stemming from ignorance rather than something inherently bad in the person. I would never call a person a devil directly, because that certainly would be a moralistic attack, which would perpetuate evil. 

One issue is “harmful” lacks description. Evil or “devilry” includes ignorance and blind selfishness, which produces “harm”. “Devilry” is very specific. If we want to solve problems, we have to identify them. I suppose just using the words ignorance and blind selfishness would suffice and we can dispense with devilry. IDK, lots to consider here. 

Either way, I think your approach seems healthier for the collective and maybe even for myself. Thanks for explaining. 

I suppose with "harmful" lacking description, I would say to add more words for greater accuracy and thoroughness (like ignorance, causing suffering, intention to harm someone, etc.) instead of trying to boil them down into a catch-all word like evil.... precisely because of what human beings tend to naturally do with the belief in the good and evil paradigm.

One thing that's important to note is that, when people consciously or unconsciously believe in the good and evil paradigm, people will develop a fundamental identification with goodness that runs very deep within themselves. And they will fragment themselves and repress anything in them that they would label as evil... and then project that onto other people that then become the targets of anything from hidden judgments that one keeps to one's self to outright violence and eradication.

And if we look at things through that good and evil lens, and use these words which have such archetypal resonance... it causes a person to consciously or unconsciously paper over the reality of deeper root causes with an over-simplified "good vs evil" narrative which leads to all the evils in the world.

So, I have a practice of unconditional compassion and not using words like evil to describe the harm that people cause. 

I'm not perfect at this. When I get mad at people causing harm to myself and others, I can get into "Fuck these evil bastards" mode.

But I try to stay conscious of the deeper forces at play underneath the "symptoms of evil" which are inherently related to human vulnerability and ignorance... to which the only cure is unconditional love and truth, which are one and the same thing.

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

No. Because then you can't see the root cause of those behaviors that Trump and other like him engage in. And that means that we can't address the real human problems that causes people to become that way.

And we start trying to fight the symptoms instead of curing the disease on the level of the germ.

Anytime you call ANYONE evil (or synonymous words like "monsters"), it always leads us into judgment and ignorance and fragmentation of ourselves... and away from truth, understanding, love, compassion, and integration.

And it becomes a cycle that perpetuates itself because we get caught up in patterns of judgment, ignorance, demonization, hatred, scapegoating, etc. instead of addressing the problems in an effective way.

The fact of the matter is that, at our core, ever single thing in the universe is whole, innocent, and loving. And it is only ignorance and suffering that lead to a fragmentation and mangling of what is purely benevolent and loving.

And if we label someone as monstrous "to their core", it is ignorant because it is totally antithetical to the truth of unconditional love that undergirds all things. And it causes us to go into a state of ignorance, judgment, fragmentation, and shame as we judge the other person as evil. And we become "evil" in our ignorance.

 

How is that different making a false equivalency between someone like Harris and someone like Trump?

 

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

How is that different making a false equivalency between someone like Harris and someone like Trump?

It's not a false equivalency because I'm not equivocating Harris and Trump at all, and my post had nothing to do with Harris or comparing anyone to anyone else. In fact, I don't think I was even talking specifically about Trump at first when I was making the point I was making. You brought Trump up.

To make it clear where I stand, it's pretty evident that Trump is more harmful than Harris. But I can explain why he's more harmful in a much more accurate way, without using the moralistic lens of good and evil.

Regardless of who we're talking about (Trump or anyone else), I was talking about the problems that arise when people start getting moralistic and labeling people as evil and as monsters... simply because of what that does to the human psyche when it latches onto the narrative of good and evil.

And even if you call a serial killer evil, we invite shame into ourselves... and we become possessed by the archetype of good and evil. And it creates a split within the human psyche... and shame and ignorance arises within one's self as a result.

And we start hyper-identifying with goodness and labeling out evil-doers... which is how most 'evil' acts are committed.

And that's just the outcome of dualistic moralistic thinking... regardless of how objectively harmful the person is that you're labeling out as evil.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Give a read on this. About Blame, Victim and Abuser Dynamics and a Big Picture View 

https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/isolation-and-blame/

 

[Oeaohoo]

On 12/11/2024 at 6:41 PM, Emerald said:

And upon deeper exploration during our session, it became clear that there is a part of himself that he's been repressing that has childlike and vulnerable parts of himself that are in need to assistance and attention. It's a part of him that needs compassion and care... like a child that needs their parents to care for them and kiss their boo boos.

But because of his strong revulsion towards Victim's Mentality, he doesn't let himself ask for help and meet those needs and he represses the vulnerable parts of himself. And he doesn't let himself seek attention unless he has achieved something that people like or approve of. And he doesn't exercise any sympathy towards himself or seek for it from others.

And it is his "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality and a dedication to a kind of self-sufficient stoicism and personal responsibility and strength that causes him to gloss over the needs of this more vulnerable part of himself that needs unconditional compassion, love, and care.

And now, there are lower Shadowy expressions of this vulnerable part of him arising since he hasn't integrated his vulnerabilities in a more conscious and exalted way.

And the repressed Victim's Mentality is coming up where he is feeling victimized by the presence of these groups of people... and part of himself is reveling in the ability to relinquish personal responsibility and cast blame onto external scapegoats. And he consciously is the type of person who takes responsibility for EVERYTHING.

But this Shadowy expression of Victim's Mentality is happening specifically because he has repressed and neglected to practice self-compassion in order to avoid "playing the victim." 

[…]

And upon further reflection on what came up in our meeting, there is perhaps even a deep-seated jealous drive because he feels he needs to earn every shred of support that he gets, while marginalized groups are advocating for their rights from the stand-point of rights being something that all people deserve. He only allows himself positive things through doing and earning... while advocating for human rights is all about being and an inherent sense of validity.

Reflecting on it, I relate to this explanation quite a lot. It’s why I’ve come to love The Smiths — especially their song I Know It’s Over, which is about accepting the childish part of yourself which needed to be loved unconditionally.

All that I don’t agree with is the idea that this is exclusively a negative phenomenon. To a degree, I think it is a healthy reaction against an unhealthily feminised culture. Though I doubt you’ll agree with that…

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Reflecting on it, I relate to this explanation quite a lot. It’s why I’ve come to love The Smiths — especially their song I Know It’s Over, which is about accepting the childish part of yourself which needed to be loved unconditionally.

All that I don’t agree with is the idea that this is exclusively a negative phenomenon. To a degree, I think it is a healthy reaction against an unhealthily feminised culture. Though I doubt you’ll agree with that…

There isn't much that's Feminine about this culture at all. We have integrated some Feminine values over the past 100 years... but we've also polarized further into the Masculine principle further than we've ever been before in human history to the point where the Masculine development of our human society threatens the stability of Mother Nature herself.

And as society develops more and more technologically (which is Masculine development), it behooves us to in equal measure integrate the Feminine principle (which means channeling and reintegrating nature)

Just like if the Masculine branches of your tree expand to produce more fruit, so too do the Feminine roots need to expand. And that's been happening to some degree with all the focus towards equality and human rights and ecological issues.

But it hasn't been happening nearly enough. So, it is very likely that our society will become hyper Masculine without the Feminine to balance it out. And our species will become so top-heavy and our societal tree will be uprooted because we kept trying to solve the Masculine excesses by adding more Masculinity to it... instead of truly integrating the Feminine.

So, there's a pretty extreme Masculine Principled imbalance. And it is because of this Masculine principled imbalance that we get dynamics where men are killing themselves because they don't let themselves be emotional and vulnerable. And everyone's hyper individualistic. And it's profits over people. And all these other things like this.

The issue is that most people think about Masculine and Feminine only as related to gender and gender roles and what men and women find sexy about the opposite gender or which gender gets rights and which don't... and things like that. But that's only has a little bit to do with the integration of the Feminine.

If you really understood the archetypal Feminine and Masculine, you would understand that the Feminine is quite uncommon to be found in our society. That's why we're all so obsessed with Femininity... especially men... and especially men who try to rid themselves of all Femininity.

Here are some Masculine and Feminine Principled phenomenon written with Masculine first and Feminine second, and you will see which archetypal values that society values more. You'll find that society values the Masculine over the Feminine the majority of the time

Extraordinary vs Ordinary

Hierarchical vs Lateral

Technology vs Nature

Strength vs Flexibility

Economy vs Ecology

Clarity vs Mystery

Doing vs Being

Branches/Fruit vs Soil/Roots

Higher vs Lower

Unlimitedness vs Limitation

Impermeability vs Permeability

Utility vs Beauty

Mind vs Body

Forward Movement vs Cycles

Thought vs Emotions

Loftiness vs Groundedness

Individualism vs Collectivism

Expansion vs Contraction

Evergreen vs Deciduous 

Detachment vs Immersion

Purity vs Integration

Stoicism vs Vulnerability

Edited 23 hours ago by Emerald

[zurew]

@Emerald I have a random question - do you think engaging in hypnotherapy is basically doing shadow work?

I am also thinking of those more weird and esoteric kind of hypno sessions like past- life regression and other weird stuff like that - do you think engaging in  those could be categorized as doing shadow work or how would you make sense of those things from a psychology lense? (assuming you have a way to properly categorize them in some way)

Edited 6 hours ago by zurew

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

@Emerald I have a random question - do you think engaging in hypnotherapy is basically doing shadow work?

I am also thinking of those more weird and esoteric kind of hypno sessions like past- life regression and other weird stuff like that - do you think engaging in  those could be categorized as doing shadow work or how would you make sense of those things from a psychology lense? (assuming you have a way to properly categorize them in some way)

Shadow Work means 'the process of making the unconscious conscious.'

And I don't see this as just being in the realm of psychology. Any time you're taking things out of the blindspot, you're engaging in Shadow Work.

So, I see all those things as falling under the umbrella term of Shadow Work.