How we Gravitate towards Evil, Collectively

The same results can be obtained even after reversing the genders.

And the results are far more diabolical when the individual mademoiselle is replaced with a collective mademoiselle. Or monsieur, or whatever other gender on the spectrum, because the phenomenon is gender-neutral.

The results are already quite diabolical due to the effect of the collective gravitating towards the individual evil, but they become exponentially more diabolical when the evil itself is collective and even bigger collective gravitates towards the collective evil.

The above is an example of the malignant type of this phenomenon.

In a highly organised social collection of individuals, as we have in our world at a global scale, individual evil is (at the worst) like a cancerous cell. There exists what we call cancer only when there are a very large number of such cancerous cells. Individual cancerous cells can’t do much damage.

Even a small group of cancerous cells is usually benign. Unless, of course, the collective gravitates towards it.

Here is benign type of the same, that is, some of the seeds of it, lest we forget completely, shown in a very much sanitized version:

We all carry some seeds of individual evil: some more, some less. Most of these seeds are supposed to lie dormant and they often do. They are there, at least partially, for evolutionary reasons. There are more than enough technologies of power (in the Foucauldian sense) to keep individual evil in check (but also keep individual good in check if it conflicts with the interests of the powers that be).

The problem is, these same technologies of power create and facilitate collective evil and/or make the collective gravitate towards it for reasons of their own (such as The Greater Good or The Higher Cause, whichever way these causes are defined, which may not be really good or higher).

So, yes, in that sense it is more a political matter, less a psychological matter.

Who decides what is Good or Higher? Who decides who decides? The collective? Those who represent the collective? Those who claim to represent the collective? Those who have the power to decide on behalf of the collective? Those who have the power and just pretend to decide on behalf of the collective? Those who convince the collective that they are deciding on behalf of the collective or for the good of the collective?

To convert a mainly political matter into a totally psychological matter has always been a tactic dear to socio-political establishments to maintain their power and to maintain the status quo (or to change it to their interests), particularly to totalitarian systems such as the Stalinist Soviet Union or the Maoist China or Nazi Germany. That is what the Re-education Camps and Gulags were for, in terms of the justification given for their existence.

There is no reason why a Capitalist Establishment can’t or won’t use this tactic.

We do know for sure about the use of medical ‘treatment’ for gender-related ‘illnesses’ or ‘disorders’ or ‘diseases’. That is not a Conspiracy Theory. The people — good people, nice people — genuinely hated and dreaded the people with such ‘illnesses’ or ‘disorders’ or ‘diseases’, to the extent we hate pedophiles, for example. In many societies, such gender related phobias (is that the right word, considering what I just said about the psychological and the political?) are still the norm. Not just phobias (or whatever is the right term), there are still laws applying them.

The one below is a less benign case of the same phenomenon, hinting towards the malignant form:

This one, as the others, shows the pushes and pulls (well, technically only pulls) of gravitation between entities, both good and evil, whether in the same person or not, and also (more importantly) between the individual evil and the collective evil. The political here is much more explicit. The psychological is just what humans are. The political is what humans have made for themselves, collectively. That last one is the keyword.

In that case, are there some Special Ones or Chosen Ones, or is the Higher or the Good for everyone?

In the fight between good and evil, the evil always has the upper hand. This is almost a cliche. But also in the fight between the individual evil and the collective evil, the latter is a guaranteed winner.

The collective just brushes aside the individual good. And it crushes the individual evil as a giant can crush a little thing. It does that only when the interests between the two don’t align well. Otherwise, they can get along just fine. That is part of how the world works.

There is less evil in a room with a view. A room at the top, however, is a very different matter. The evil there is immeasurably more.

The room at the top is the control centre of the technologies of power. An evil Mademoiselle or a Monsieur is just the kind of asset that they need there.

Only as long as the interests align.

A room at the top comes, not only with a view, but with much evil, with or without the Mademoiselle or the Monsieur.

A Casual Theory of Literal Insanity

Abnormal Psychology has never interested me much. I have always been more interested in Normal Psychology, so much so, that at one point I was planning to write a book titled Elements of Normal Psychology. Like a lot else that I planned to do, that didn’t work out.

A recent post on Digg.com, which tells us “what the Internet is thinking”, has, however, inspired me to propose a theory of insanity. Again, I am much less interested in literal (clinical) insanity than metaphorical insanity. The former, I think, is a phenomenon of little relevance to the problems of the world as clinically insane people can do little harm to general public, relatively speaking.

What terrifies me is metaphorical insanity, that is, insanity of (collectives of) normal people, which is infinitely more dangerous than any literal individual insanity.

Since I can’t do the tougher job of providing a theory of metaphorical insanity, I content myself here with providing a theory of literal insanity. A casual one at that.

The Digg.com post was initially titled:

Dog Finally Catches Its Tail, Has An Existential Crisis

Sometime later, it got changed to something along the lines of:

Dog Finally Catches Its Tail, Breaks its Brain

Then it again mysteriously changed back to:

Dog Finally Catches Its Tail, Has An Existential Crisis

Perhaps they realized they had gone too far in their regular Dog Whistle Distraction posting this time.

It is the middle version of the title (that has disappeared now) which inspired me to come up with a theory, with a little help from the movie Wag the Dog.

Here goes:

The dog wags the tail because it is smarter than the tail. If the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog.

The state of world can be explained to a great degree by this Wag the Dog theory, i.e., the tail is smarter than the dog. Therefore, as long as the dog does not realize that the tail is wagging it, it remains (clinically) sane. When, however, the dog finally catches its tail and finds out that it was being wagged by the tail, it goes through an existential crisis. This crisis eventually Breaks its Brain. This is what is called clinical insanity.

Therefore, to retain your health and well-being, it is highly advisable to remain blissfully ignorant of who or what is wagging you, as in the case of tail wagging the dog.