Circle of blame

Two centuries or so ago, we decided to cut our society free from a center. No longer would we unify ourselves with transcendental values such as culture, values, spirituality and aristocracy, but we would focus on the body. Specifically, the equality of anyone who had one.

Ever since that time, our society has been a merry-go-round of blame. We started by blaming the kings, then we blamed the wealthy, then we blamed the Church, and then a series of political enemies from Anarchists to Hitlers. In each case we were told that someone was to blame, and if we removed them, Utopia would reign.

After all, we fought “the war to end all wars.” Before that, we beheaded countless aristocrats. We have killed more elitists, racists, fundamentalists and wannabe oligarchs than we can keep track of. Our purges have been subtle but always emphasize finding someone to blame for our position.

But then it doesn’t change. The circle of blame comes around again; a new enemy is found and conquered. If not Hitler, Pol Pot; if not Pol Pot, the druglords or KKK, or maybe carbon emitters. Who knows who will be next? Each time it is insinuated that if we remove the persons we blame, we will finally be free.

And yet freedom is never free, in that to be free you must be freed from something, which requires we construct a Satan to blame for our predicament. That gives us for a few shining moments purpose as we form a lynch mob, find an incarnation of the Devil, and burn his witchy corpse in the town square.

Morning comes, and our problems remain — in fact, they have intensified. We did not remove their source but one instance of them, or perhaps only one reflection of them. The real problem remains because we carry it with us, through our assumptions and undisciplined behaviors. We are to blame.

Even if we were not to blame, it is clear that those we blame — even if we assume everything said about them is true — are not the source of the blame, nor those who will fix it. We are the only people who can fix it. We are in the driver’s seat. If we don’t fix it, no one will.

To motivate groups of people, it is handy to have someone to blame. Nazis, Jews, Anarchists, Communists, Satanists, drug dealers, sexist hip-hop, Racists, Negroes, Christians, Muslims, The Rich. But the blame obscures the real task before us, which is fixing the problem instead of obliterating its symbols.

25 Comments

  1. Mihai says:

    “And yet freedom is never free, in that to be free you must be freed from something”

    Nietzsche addressed this problem a number of times, making a difference between being free FOR something and being free FROM something.

    The modern world focuses only on the latter- they want to be FREE pure and simple. Free from government, free from elites, free from hierarchy, free from nature, free from taxes, free from God, free from everything. FOR what ?
    They have no idea. They have no purpose, they don’t know up from down, left from right. They keep inventing enemies, because this gives them the only purpose they are able to understand in life: to always be AGAINST something.

    1. crow says:

      Great comment, Mihai. That’s the way it seems to be.
      It’s the antithesis of the taoist concept of non-resistance. The petulant child that stamps its foot, endlessly, screaming at life.

    2. Ted Swanson says:

      Figuring out the difference between “freedom for” and “freedom from” was a watershed moment for me.

      The person who understands freedom as freedom-from is constantly looking over his shoulder. He is constantly on the move. Afraid.

      Freedom-for is the mode of the master.

  2. preston wiginton says:

    I was not aware that Nietzsche commented about freedom in such a way. I have stated for a long time that one is only free to do or free from. I further state that one is more free in the greater family that they are born into and the multiculturalism creates conflict.

  3. Matt Parrott says:

    This is all well and good, and I agree with this article almost entirely–even on the Jew thing. The thread I believe begs to be tugged at in this is its ignoring the relationship between power and ideals. Sprinkled throughout the countryside, there are men and women who’ve achieved what you’re referring to through one avatar of transcendence or another. Excellent sites like this could increase that sprinkling a great deal, and could conceivably even trigger a cascade of events that solves the power problem.

    The problem is that you have no power. I have no power. Authentic spirituality has no power. Power in the West is wielded by a loose network of Jewish managerial elites and gentile mercantile elites. You don’t need to “get” the Jews in order to realign yourself with the primordial currents of Tribe, Tradition, and Transcendence. You do; however, need to get them away from the reins of power in the West in order for our society as a whole to realign itself. Other things are necessary, too, namely a defeat of the neo-colonial Global Capitalism and its mercantile ideology which are largely indigenous errors.

    Many things are incompatible with realigning society with the primordial currents of Tribe, Tradition, and Transcendence. One of them is empowering an alien tribe (whether hostile and decadent or not) to control your peoples’ destiny. This point has become a focal point in my work more because the resistance is strongest there than because I privilege it. Same with race, actually.

    My racial identity is something I wish to take for granted. I don’t really care about my race any more than I care about my breathing. That’s to say that it means little to me unless I’m being deprived of it. My initiatic and spiritual development is something that matters far more to me than “the Jews”, yet that’s not what directly relates to the power problem. Were somebody trying to stop me from inwardly turning away from Modernity then that’s where the battle would be. Fortunately, this machine is one which relies on temptation and habit rather than force to keep people plugged in.

    In summary, the goal is indeed to save the princess, not to defeat Donkey Kong. Though, as long as most of the barrels are coming from him and he remains the most aggressive and fearsome obstacle between myself and the princess, then it’s on…like Donkey Kong.

    1. Ryan says:

      whoa were are not supposed to talk about “jews” here man, trying to not get the SPLC to shut them down. (im not disagreeing with you though), but think for a minute, didn’t blaming the “jews” cause that whole white guilt thing in the first place, before the jews wasnt there reconstruction? no jews allowed in under the rules of ol’ grant. and as much as zionism is a filthy cancerous shitsmear on the american people, doesn’t it survive mainly throught COOPERATION WITH said “jews” by rich “traditional americans” .

      “Other things are necessary, too, namely a defeat of the neo-colonial Global Capitalism and its mercantile ideology which are largely indigenous errors.”
      Good point, never the less it is fiery rhetoric that serves no purpose, i would assume that in most cases the “callers to action” are not the ones carrying out said objectives, they sit back and fling shit at them like Brevik after the fact, fully aware that they are indeed doing the same thing but, like all “leaders” they rely on depressed, disillusioned and strong young whitemen to actually do anything. so i think that it is rather irrelevant to just “Call for the defeat terrorism”, just as much as it is a waste of time to preach to the choir “god wills it” etc. basically im am saying we are not at that stage to be talking like this.

      1. Matt Parrott says:

        Either the Jews are discussed or they’re not. It’s hardly fair to bring up the topic just long enough to absolve them of accountability but insist that the topic be dropped when somebody objects. I agree with the site’s statement that Radical honesty is the best policy, and that we do ourselves a disservice by abiding taboos against discussing this or that. At the very least, either abide the taboo or discard it.

        If the Jewish role is to be discussed candidly, then I’ll do so. If it’s to be ignored, then I’ll even ignore it. If it’s to be discussed but only in a certain direction, then I’ll doff my hat and excuse myself from what I believe to be inappropriately structured discourse.

        As for the tactical considerations, I politely differ and believe I’m working towards a framework and process which does indeed strike at the root and promise to result in tangible progress.

        1. Ryan says:

          well i guess we have to wait and see what the “leadership” of the site has to say, i agree and do enjoy your pieces at the “Occ.Observer”. (but in the past my “anti-semitism” has be purged from the comments, for understandable reasons).

          1. crow says:

            Anti-Semitism is a funny (not-so-funny) thing.
            It assumes because some example of Jewry are ‘bad’, then Jews are ‘bad’.
            You might as well be anti-white, because Hitler was white. Anti-dog because one bit you, once…
            This is probably what leftists go on about so much, with their ongoing battle against prejudice. Prejudiced against prejudice, by being prejudiced.

            1. Ryan says:

              exactly

            2. Matt Parrott says:

              This presumes that my “antisemitism” is due to collecting examples of Jews being perfidious and concluding that Jews are perfidious. In the aggregate, I believe that their influence in the contemporary West has been largely negative. But this is really about tribal identity and pan-nationalism. Africa for the Africans. Israel for the Israelis. Avalon for the Avalonians.

              No matter how meritorious Jews might be, they don’t belong to my tribal family. They are a nation, a different nation. I do believe they canceled Green Acres and Hee Haw and to some extent I do blame them “as a people” for that. But that’s entirely beside the point.

              1. crow says:

                Was anyone assuming anything about ‘your antisemitism’? I don’t think so.
                It’s a topic that comes up often, and never fails to elicit emotional responses.
                You are entitled to any view you may have: we are not leftists, here. There are a few rules, though.
                There are always rules (:>

              2. Ryan says:

                that is not anti-semitism, you are exactly correct!

    2. ferret says:

      “You do, however, need to get them away from the reins of power in the West in order for our society as a whole to realign itself.”

      Ok, there will be Chinese guys instead, doing same things. Will it help?
      Or the Chinese are not as good “for the reins of power” as the Jews?

      1. Matt Parrott says:

        If the only thing we were to do were to eject the Jews from the “reins of power”, we would indeed be delivered up to a different oligarchy…perhaps the Chinese.

        Were anybody here arguing that the Jews were the single cause and that their ejection is the single solution, you certainly would have nailed that imaginary person to the wall, comrade.

      2. Ok, there will be Chinese guys instead, doing same things.

        Also a very good point, and illustrative of why blaming the outside group doesn’t work. Parasites and predators are like petty criminals; they pop up whenever there’s a space for them. The only solution is as Ted Swanson suggested a strong cultural immune system.

    3. You don’t need to “get” [any particular group] in order to realign yourself with the primordial currents of Tribe, Tradition, and Transcendence.

      I expanded your comment above to make it universal because I agree with your comment very much. Our point here is cultural revolution: if you change attitudes among the 2-5% of natural leaders in our society, they then change society to a more positive direction.

  4. ferret says:

    Hitler also noticed something was wrong with Jews. Though he was 1/4 Jewish himself: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

    1. crow says:

      It takes one to know one.
      One really good thing about death is that it saves one from further embarrassment.

    2. Matt Parrott says:

      The proposition that Hitler was 1/4 Jewish is based on the most tenuous speculation. It’s bad history. The stuff about him having African origins is bad science, with a moment’s pause confirming that a genetic analysis of one’s cousins is not an effective way to discern one’s own genetic profile.

      He may well have been 1/4 Jewish and part African, for all I care. It’s entirely irrelevant. I wasn’t defending Hitler. I wasn’t advocating some sort of Gattaca-style determination of ancestry. All I was doing was discussing the Jews in relation to our situation in a manner which led you to presume that I’m an easily-butthurt neo-Nazi.

    3. Ryan says:

      now were talking about hitler again great! ill go put on my conical hood and my “northern by birth, southern by choice” shirt on. ol’ hitler like anyother mouthpiece can be molded and shaped to fit the zeitgeist, and what is better for the left than making their “attila” a hypocrite. hitler is basically irrelivant, we need to move past the whole holocaust thing, most jewish people are actually white people who are basically only a “ethnic group” because of their penchant for self-”otherization”. if we get rid of their fear they do not exist, so don the sheepskins lads and shut up about the jews and hitler please!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFgbpkhP-js&feature=related
      watch the end

      1. crow says:

        Hitler did what most people would do in his situation.
        He got completely drunk on his own power.
        It was the sheep that gave him such power, who are to be scrutinized.
        Still. we do so like to assign blame.

        1. Ryan says:

          it was the junkers and the militarists (von seekt) who actually gave him power and they fought over control the whole war wasting millions of young conscripted viginal lives so they could prove useless points, i mean il duce and hitler were the party, the party is not the wermacht; the military. in the end it is the MILITARY THAT DECIDES
          “the state is the organization that maintains a monopoly on violence” – max weber
          did hitler ever have a monopoly? the surrender ar stalingrad says no, it was against his orders.
          the whole “get the jews” thing is so similar to the “get the kulaks” thing that we should be worried we don’t get confused what we are really doing. greed comes in all denominations, especially when they can differentiate themselves from their minions/host in someway (how about “white priviledge”).
          assigning blame is really fun (and usually not always counter-productive) but revenge is the most unintelligent emotion, it is for proles to do, we are not proles, we don’t want to tear down we want to conserve and protect, right?.
          i myself get caught up in scapegoating, so i am not trying to “criticize”, but mainly remind people that it is not really very smart.

          1. the whole “get the jews” thing is so similar to the “get the kulaks” thing that we should be worried we don’t get confused what we are really doing. greed comes in all denominations, especially when they can differentiate themselves from their minions/host in someway (how about “white priviledge”).

            This is astute. “Get the X group” serves to deflect attention from a working fix to society at large.

            What crow was saying (I think — can’t speak or even squawk for him) was that Hitler was democratically elected, much like the Muslim brotherhood is going to win elections in Egypt or already has.

            The point is that entrusting power to the undifferentiated masses guarantees they will elect someone inappropriate. What form that person takes is another story, but does it matter? Nazis, Communists, al-Qaeda, Mercantilists — take your pick!

            1. ferret says:

              ““Get the X group” serves to deflect attention from a working fix to society at large.”

              In Ryan’s example with the kulaks, the second target was to rid of them as a competitors. Kulaks were the best farmers while the other less successful peasants lacked the knowledge and mostly were drunks.

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 1.273 seconds