RE: Christchurch mosque shootings: the heartbreaking hearing
September 1, 2020 at 1:37 pm
(This post was last modified: September 1, 2020 at 1:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
We observe that the single greatest factor in the willingness to kill is a belief in the assent of society. This cuts across all ideological boundaries. A white supremacist becomes a killer when they come to believe that what they're doing will be accepted just the same way that an islamist does - which is why so much of conditioning can appear to the victim as positive messaging.
It takes some effort to get people to kill, and contrary to common supposition, the people groomed to this sort of shit aren't the worst people, in the bottom percentage (that we imagine might be easier to compel to killing - which is also untrue, but deserves mention). Alot of reasons for this, but the two most salient reasons boil down to the willingness of the victim to submit to an authority structure, and their ability to be unnoticed.
They want good boys who do what they're told and don't stand out and believe that they're part of a larger movement of beneficial change. It starts to become crystal clear why domestic terrorists are the real issue of concern when you think about it practically.
This is where it turns back on itself - because the picture of the ideal candidate for grooming is very different from our picture of the end product - and we imagine that some profound change must have happened -in- that person to go from what they were to where they are when we finally notice them - but that's usually not the case. Killing already had the assent of society within some boundary. Conditioning doesn't work by creating new pathologies. We should never be surprised, or assume that Bad™ is involved, when a person from a society that does extend assent to killing, kills. That this phenomena can be described as bad people doing bad things. That's not what it is. It's good people, selected for those units of conceptual goodness that have practical utility to killing.
Voltaire had it right - those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-The great replacement, absurd...but if you believed it - what would the appropriate course of action be?
-The great satan, absurd...but if you believed it - what would the appropriate course of action be?
I don't think that most people are entirely honest with themselves when they condemn terrorism. That's as much a rote behavior as the things grommers exploit (though I appreciate you have some additional experience compared to others)
It's complicated, or one bad plate of shrimp - whichever comes first.
It takes some effort to get people to kill, and contrary to common supposition, the people groomed to this sort of shit aren't the worst people, in the bottom percentage (that we imagine might be easier to compel to killing - which is also untrue, but deserves mention). Alot of reasons for this, but the two most salient reasons boil down to the willingness of the victim to submit to an authority structure, and their ability to be unnoticed.
They want good boys who do what they're told and don't stand out and believe that they're part of a larger movement of beneficial change. It starts to become crystal clear why domestic terrorists are the real issue of concern when you think about it practically.
This is where it turns back on itself - because the picture of the ideal candidate for grooming is very different from our picture of the end product - and we imagine that some profound change must have happened -in- that person to go from what they were to where they are when we finally notice them - but that's usually not the case. Killing already had the assent of society within some boundary. Conditioning doesn't work by creating new pathologies. We should never be surprised, or assume that Bad™ is involved, when a person from a society that does extend assent to killing, kills. That this phenomena can be described as bad people doing bad things. That's not what it is. It's good people, selected for those units of conceptual goodness that have practical utility to killing.
Voltaire had it right - those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-The great replacement, absurd...but if you believed it - what would the appropriate course of action be?
-The great satan, absurd...but if you believed it - what would the appropriate course of action be?
I don't think that most people are entirely honest with themselves when they condemn terrorism. That's as much a rote behavior as the things grommers exploit (though I appreciate you have some additional experience compared to others)
It's complicated, or one bad plate of shrimp - whichever comes first.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
