Victimization Is Instinctive

Collaboration With Victimization: A Sin To Ruin Civilization.

Victimization is a powerful instinct that encourages masters to become ever more abusive. All masters have it. All those who submit to it, encourage it some more.

Thus victimhood is another drawback of a society with masters and servants, as victimization tends to make it ever more so.

Where does the Dark Side, this gift that enables us, come from? From a set of evolved behaviors that our brains naturally engaged in, from the very way they are. Those behaviors were fruitful in the last thirty million years or so. They enabled our uppity primate ancestors, in their quest for the conquest of everything.

We grew, and changed as a genus, into what we are.

White House Resident Obama says all the time “it’s not what we are” after describing how the USA are. He is living in total denial, so his presidency has consisted into crawling modestly at the feet of great plutocrats, and accomplishing nothing. Why? Because beggars, supplicants and victims, per their nature, accomplish little, except for living in denial. They instinctively resign themselves to be emergency food supply, and finding consolation that way.

(An animal being devoured, flooded with endorphins, does not suffer that much, thus allowing the predator to not suffer an  injury. Injuring a predator is ecologically disruptive!)

Victimhood, and thus impotency, has been the defining characteristic, and great advantage, of Christianity, with its tortured hero hanging from nails, pathetically moaning. That’s why Roman emperors loved to give birth to Christianity, to victimize the population some more.

The end result of all this victimization and victimhood glorified: the quasi-collapse of civilization until the “Franks”took over. That “Frank” meant “Ferocious” (and thus free) is no coincidence: the Franks were the exact opposite, and opponents, of victimhood. As Consul, King and Imperator Clovis pointed out, “if my Franks had been there, this would not have happened”. By “this” he meant all this pathetic moaning on a cross. The Franks did not recognize victimhood as a valid moral posture, that’s why they were able to restart civilization.

Real philosophers are more interested by what we are, than in denying who we are, Obama style.

Instead of claiming that there are no waves on that beach, when periodically a wall of water sweeps ashore, learn to surf them. So goes wisdom.

We are predators, the most efficient predators that ever were. In practice that means our species, for at least 2 million years ate, dominated and killed whatever was in the way. And that did not happen by accident, but by will, and because such is our good pleasure. We got the psychology to kill and dominate.

This domination became total during the Neolithic. Before the Neolithic, in the Middle Earth as anywhere else, lions (or lion like) species were the most numerous (and thus massive, literally) species. Humans exterminated the lions from all the places suitable for rising cattle, and, so doing, as cattle exhale prodigious quantities of methane, modified the climate, avoiding a little re-glaciation.

Thus the concept of “Anthropocene” (the geological age of man) is entirely justified, and we entered it more than 10,000 years ago.

The first megafauna to disappear was that of Australia, when it was invaded by Homo Sapiens hybridized with Denisovans.

In general what does a predator do? Kill. Kill what? Preferably the weak, the sick, the dumb. Most predators engage in a period of observation of the potential prey to determine who the weak are. Predators chose their prey among those who look like the best victims, they are attracted by victims, excited by victimhood. This is a very strong “instinct”… There is a pulsion, even among a simple an animal as a shark, to focus aggression on victims.

That instinct of victimization is no doubt present in humans. That does not mean that it’s simply a sin, something to bemoan, and claim loudly on rooftops that will have nothing to do with it. One may as well bemoan the weather and rain. Because one has no control of it, and, however disagreeable on the moment, it is also a good thing.

What it means is that any system of thought or mood that brandishes victimhood and martyrdom as if it were sainthood is accomplice to aggression. Including, of course, non-violence made into a religion.

Nietzsche perceived this, somewhat confusedly, and riled against victimhood as a religion.

Non-violence (and hate of the British) made Gandhi a self-declared friend of Hitler. This is no anecdote, and it’s no ancient history: Gandhi’s attitude led to the partition of India, and thus a threat of nuclear war (and thus the obstinate desire of Obama to stay in Afghanistan to keep on messing up with Pakistan!).

Now it is increasingly perceived that the Munich conference of 1938 and the Yalta conference of 1945 encouraged Hitler (with the first one) and Stalin. Both Munich and Yalta showed Stalin that, the more a dictator ordered the West imperiously, the more he got.

At Munich and Yalta, leading democracies started to behave like trembling victims, and that excited the predators.

In neither case that was justified: in 1938, the French and Czech armies could have held off the Nazis, while Britain rearmed. At Yalta, the Western Allies, had under their command 16 million soldiers (to Stalin’s 600 divisions). But both Churchill and Roosevelt were weak and close to death. Having excluded the fierce and dashing De Gaulle, who would have no doubt stiffened their spine, was a huge mistake.

(General De Gaulle, heading the hastily constituted French Fourth Heavy Armored division, nearly cut-off the Panzer army in May 1940, and nearly killed the entire Nazi Panzer command, including its chief Gen. Guderian… So De Gaulle was a real combatant, differently from Churchill and FDR. I recognize this, although I don’t like him.)

Except of course, Munich and Yalta were not really a mistakes, from the plutocratic point of view. Whatever weakens democracy is good to plutocracy, so Munich and Yalta were irreplaceable. Indeed, to this day, Russia is an unabashed plutocracy headed by a KGB agent, a spiritual son of Stalin. (And, early on, American plutocrats financed, advised and helped not just Lenin, but also Stalin… However counter-intuitive that is.)

A more recent example? Abe is the Prime Minister of Japan. He, somewhat rabidly, honors World War Two mass murdering criminals of the worst kind (the kind entangled with the worst infamy).

What should the West do? Acting as it has been doing, like a trembling victim again? Chosing the path to victimhood again?

Or lodge a formal protest and withdraw Western ambassadors from Japan for “consultation“? Of course the latter. Japs who have learned nothing important, are apparently still around, calling holocausts they conducted before, heroic, while worshipping the worst souls known to man.

(Japan killed more than 35 million citizens of other countries in World War II, most of them civilians, while losing only two millions or so, most of them soldiers in the Japanese army, from disease. Crying oversized crocodile tears about Hiroshima and Nagasaki won’t change that reality.)

Those Japs have to learn civilization is their master, and it has a sword, and even a few nukes, and the will to use them. At the first clear occasion. Playing trembling victims excusing themselves with Japan at this point would be an exact repeat of what happened in the past: encouraging victimization by behaving like victims.

The plutocrats that led Japan until 1945 were morally identical to the Nazis, albeit with even fewer excuses, and the fact that the Japanese government still does not get that basic monstrosity in 2014 is more than alarming: it turns civilization again into a trembling victim. Again.

Victimhood is no strategy in the defense of civilization. It only invites predation on civilization. And that is also true with all and any inexcusable drift towards the Dark Side (Obama, his drones, and his NSA being another obvious inexcusable drift).

Martyrdom and victimhood are deeply inhuman. They behoove not who we are and how we evolved into the crown of creation.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Victimization Is Instinctive”

  1. Alexy Helligar Says:

    “Victimization is a powerful instinct that encourages masters to become ever more abusive. All masters have it.” Especially when masters claim to be the victims of their slaves.

  2. Alexi Helligar Says:

    Alexi Helligar We have slaves because we have swords.

  3. Aaron Greenbird Says:

    i believe slavery/ victimization has much to do with the ‘abrahamic religions’…..the belief that some off planet father god, or his son or messiah will come down to earth and save the chosen few….this messianic madness that had rocked palestine for centuries was alien to the european psyche. in order for it to be carried into Europa and imposed on the native peoples, further mutations of the redeemer complex had to occur, especially the dogma that the messiah sent by the father to insure the salvation of the righteous few……

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed, Aaron. Slavery had existed in Babylon for more than 2,000 years before the invention of Christianism. However, Babylonian slavery was very different from the Roman form. Babylonian slaves (like Roman slaves) could become rich, and even buy their freedom (Roman slaves could not do that, at least, not directly).

      Roman slavery rose, all by itself, around 300 BCE. Spoils of war, more human way of treating prisoners.

      In general, contrarily to the mood that we owe everything to Jews and the Messiah, I view Christianity as derivative. It’s clear it advantaged the Late Roman emperors, especially in its cruel, demented, crazy, cross brandishing form.

      After all, the cross, adopted from the Middle East, was the symbol of Rome by the time of Spartacus’ revolt (around 70 BCE).

      More than 6,000 were crucified simultaneously along the Via Appia.It was the message of plutocracy to the rabble, the plebs: don’t get fancy ideas, we will treat you as them.

      USA style slavery was still something else. It was uniquely cruel, racial, and thoroughly demented that way. It perdures to this day with the habit of calling brownish people such as Obama (he is less brown than in the doctored pics around), “BLACK”. In Africa, that deformation of color would be viewed as highly racist. Indeed calling people as of some color they are not entails that one does not take the reality they represent as worth considering. I learned that one when I was 7… My own Mom warned me to never make that impudent mistake in Senegal…

  4. Lovell Says:

    Why is humanity still at war with itself? Is the ongoing conflict between races, class, religions, and cultures just a part of global human evolutionary process?

    How should civilization/humanity proceed? Must it reject or embrace the other? Is “pluribus unum” still a viable or practical ideal?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Lovell: First, my guess would be that the Earth can sustainably support, with mild Neolithic technology, not more than 50 millions human beings. So we are at roughly 100 times the sustainable technology’s density.

      It’s still sustainable, as long as we develop sci-fi tech. But that has been slow in coming.

      Photovoltaics with reservoirs, and various tolerable nuclear techs have not been deployed yet… although they are around the corner.

      Culling of man by man has always been part of the process. If a world war came, support for science, especially physics, would be massive in the West. For humanity to go on, more advanced tech, more advanced science is, at this point, a necessity. Hence a world war, paradoxically, is not the worst thing. The worst thing is to let the CO2 catastrophe proceed.

      Killing 6 billion is easy to reverse. By making more babies. But the CO2 levels, absent thermonuclear tech terraforming, are there to stay for at least 1,000 years, with all and any available techs for scrubbing it.

    • Lovell Says:

      My take is that Western secular enlightenment and the civilization it spawned is the only viable model for human progress and thus will continue to be yearned for in the rest of the world in its, sort of, hegemonic march. If there’s a war worth fighting for, it would be in defense for this brand of enlightenment which is currently under assault from the forces of global plutocratic movement.

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Lovell: Indeed, but secular enlightenment is from way back. The Franks totally had it around 500 CE, and the Romans and Athenians clearly had early forms of enlightenment going).

    Right now the (Western) European Republican model dominates the whole planet, clearly.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: