portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

political theory

The Genocidal Mentality Pt 3: In defense of Idealistic Moralism vs 'Pragmatism'

An examination of the ideology of genocide, followed by a discussion of the only logical alternative, Idealistic Moralism, as opposed to the 'pragmatism' embedded in genocidal thinking.

The Genocidal Mentality Pt 3:
In defense of Idealistic Moralism vs 'Pragmatism'

The Genocidal mentality

In the previous sections of this article I examined some practical real world examples of the modern genocidal ideology in action. In the following section, I present a review of genocide as belief system, followed by a discussion of the only logical alternative, the polar opposite to the 'pragmatism' of genocidal thinking, 'Idealistic Moralism'.

Ideological Totalism

Ideological totalism describes, "A belief in which devil hatred subsumes anything in he way of positive belief' resulting in an ideology that took on "totalistic qualities, became associated with thought and feeling that was absolute and completely polarized." A classic example of this type of totalistic ideology can be found in the cultural archetype of classic Christianity, a religious ideology that incorporates both the ideology of of polarization between 'devils' and 'angels', 'saved' and 'unsaved', 'lost' and 'found' and also incorporates the genocidal mentality in its descriptions of 'hell fire and brimstone' for those outside the orthodox genocidal system. This totalistic mentality was also incorporated in the Cold War between the Americans and the Russians, with the Russians becoming the repository of Satanism in a new type of quasi-religious cult where the 'free market' represented heaven and salvation, and the Russians represented hell and damnation. This devil then became 'the repository for all evil; and America, by means of an insistent symmetry, the repository of good." Thus the relationship could be understood "in biblical terms" with the enemy becoming 'godless monsters', 'the focus of all evil and the evil empire." By dwelling exclusively on enemy evil, this "justified any means on our part, covert or overt, violent or nonviolent, that might serve the purposes of frustrating' the enemies design. The enemy was willing to 'strike a surprise blow' because of 'American virtue : the essential tolerance of our world outlook, our generous and constructive impulses, and with the absence of covetousness in our international relations. The language was deliberately hyped for the sake of gaining support for American weapons buildup." This followed "other themes of ideological totalism, including manipulation of guilt and shame in those who rejects its assumptions and a cult of confession to permit such 'deviants' to admit their errors and the principle of 'doctrine over person.' (The Genocidal Mentality, Robert Jay Lifton, Pg 87-88)

Genocide as 'deterrence'

Christian totalists justify genocidal means of 'salvation' and 'discipline' as required in order to 'maintain moral authority'. Genocidal threats focus on 'prevention' and genocide only becomes a requirement 'if deterrence fails. This contingent aspect of genocidal intent enables us to resist recognizing it as genocidal intent." Adherents "cannot publically acknowledge the degree of brutalization, of genocidal intent, contingent or otherwise," and this requires that one become "sufficiently numbed by the ideology and its practice to ... accept the killing." The acceptance of genocide is "bound up with mystification ... both obfuscation and veneration," so that the advocates of genocide take on "a certain aura, a mystique that renders them transcendent and beyond ordinary criticism...untouchable." Eventually the mystique becomes "routinized, accepted into everyday life." Genocidal scenarios "become mythic tales and morality plays" about wisdom and contribute to "mystification in their alleged control of the narrative, in their denial of the terrible truth that most of the scenarios were far-fetched and even preposterous." although these scenarios come to be perceived as "containing a special psychic truth, a form of knowledge emanating from the priests and shamans," with this general mystification contributing to the idea of the genocidal enterprise being "a demanding, even heroic ordeal" which while difficult, "we have to do it" and part of the ordeal is contemplating what this genocide means for actual living human beings. Once "totalized and mystified the ideology extends claim everywhere so that even partial belief can exert considerable influence"...such as 'maintaining our deterrence.' The genocidal ideology thus provides society with its 'master narrative, a powerful source of meaning...an ideological glue." (GM pg 89-90)

Ethical Genocide

Genocidal ideologies are found to be wrapped up the mythology of 'salvation', the vision of 'rebirth' of being 'born again'. "Genocidal ideologies make ethical claims...it is impossible to kill extremely large numbers of people without a vision of a higher purpose...(which is felt to be) just right and fair. Even the hatred and violence called for could be seen as justified...an ennobling enterprise on behalf of rebirth...an ideological ethic supports brutal behavior." However "the ethical claims could be quickly exposed by a critical observer as justifications for large scale murder and vicious cruelty" even though "its immediate ethical claims can seem much more reasonable" as part of a desperate struggle with an evil adversary. Typically the claim is made that the sacrifice of some made possible 'the saving of millions more' (the claim made to justify the nuclear bombing of Japan, as just one example, or the Christian justification for the current wave of persecution being directed at gays and lesbians to 'protect our children' and 'save our society'). Therefore, one evil, hellish genocide, serves the interests of peace by acting as a powerful deterrent. This process of rationalization allows the development of a folk culture where genocide can only be good because those who employ it are good, and genocide would further the progress of goodness by protecting the righteous way of life.

"The genocidal ideology, given its totalistic claims, must press forward toward ethical justification," even it reaches the "absurdity of the contention by the right wing antifeminist activist Phyllis Schlafly : 'The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God,'" so that through a process of religious mystification the means of genocide "becomes, almost literally, God's grace." (GM pg. 94)

'Killing to heal'

"If (genocidal) ideological claims are considered absolutely true, then the consequences must be viewed as equally absolutely legitimate." (GM pg. 94) Legitimacy is obtained through such devices as the passing of laws and the sanction of 'the authorities' and through 'moral arguments' focusing on the issue of 'security' and 'deterrence'. This process is obvious in the legitimization of nuclear warfare (even going so far as to have George Bush announce that under certain circumstances America is now willing to engage in 'preemptive nuclear strikes'), as well as the security issues surrounding 'the war on terrorism' and the need for deterrence. The doctrines resemble those of the Nazi doctrines of 'killing to heal'. It is necessary to kill many Iraqis to 'heal Iraq' just as it required that Christians kill all the lesbians and homosexuals (if not in this life, then in the next) both to act as a deterrent to future acts of homosexuality, but also to protect the 'security' of the monogamous family and 'heal the land'.

The same language of 'killing to heal' is found to permeate the strategic goals of the IMF, where countries are plunged into destitution and millions consigned to slums and poverty in order to 'heal the economy.' Claims of 'killing to heal' are always "buried under claims of beneficent influence...of preventive killing via deterrence ... yet this very insidiousness has a particular danger. For that healing-killing ethos-the idea of actually exploding the bomb for the sake of ultimate peace-was present almost from the beginning." Secretary of War Henry Stimson (during the time of the nuclear bombing of Japan, believed that through "the proper use of this weapon [it would be possible] to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved." Similarly the same ideology of killing to heal permeates religious and economic institutions, the proper use of 'free market prescriptions' as a weapon can 'save the economy' just as proper use of the legal system to persecute gays, lesbians, and every other 'religious deviant' can 'save society.' (GM pg. 96) Genocidal ideologies "achieve collective vitality and a sense of purification by killing others...killing to heal is both the extreme edge and the essence" of genocidal ideology. (GM pg. 97)


If people are going to participate in atrocious acts of genocide and cruelty, while maintaining an image of themselves as good people, it becomes necessary that they create two complete 'selves', one which is their 'normal' self and another which could be called 'their professional self,' with this second self taking on the genocidal task. "The psychological mechanism of doubling is a key to understanding how Nazi doctors managed to do the work of killing. Doubling involved the formation of an Auschwitz self, by which one internalized many of the patterns and assumptions of the Auschwitz environment: the reversals of healing and killing, the operative Nazi biomedical vision, the extreme numbing that rendered killing no longer killing, struggles with omnipotence (deciding who would live or die) and impotence (being a cog in a powerful machine), maintaining a medical identity while killing, and somehow finding meaning in the environment." (GM pg. 106)

"Doubling (is) a form of dissociation ... a part self acts as an entire self...the prior self was operative when visiting wife and children...the Auschwitz self had an impressive autonomy from the prior self and ... allowed the doctor to adapt to the entire Auschwitz environment...enabling him to avoid experiencing strong feelings of guilt...the institution wanted him to bring forth a self adapted to killing without feeling himself a murderer...(this was) a shared psychological process, the group norm, part of what one doctor referred to as 'the Auschwitz weather'."

'The Angels of Death'

'It's a terrible thing, but we have to do it." Hans Bethe

To the religious adherent of a genocidal ideology, hell fire and genocide was a terrible thing, that would end sinfulness, and save the world. To the IMF restructuring was also an admittedly terrible thing that would end poverty and save the world. To the nuclearist, the bomb was terrible and genocidal, but would bring peace to the world. To the Democrat, 'fighting inflation' was painful medicine, but it would 'save the economy' and 'promote growth' and someday eliminate the terrible poverty in the land. In all these cases people are found to do terrible things, genocidal things, but as terrible as it was "they had to do it." Genocidal ideologies carry within them a sense of 'inevitability' and this very insistence on the unavoidable nature of genocide is what allows people to do it, because it can't be avoided. If they don't do it, someone else will. People who maintain and ethical world view as well as a picture of themselves as 'good people' can also participate in the genocidal system, using the justification that if 'good people don't work with the system then it will be run only by evil people.'

If no good people worked at Auschwitz, then the place would become even more cruel as cruel people would run the place, with terrible consequences. It is inevitable. Its going to happen in any case, and if we don't do it, someone else will, someone probably far worse than we are. For example if Democrats don't do it, Republicans will, and thus evil people would be doing evil instead of putting a Democrat in, thus having good people doing evil. This is my characteristic of the perennial debate among Democrats over electing 'the lesser of two evils' (as they refer to process of electing a Democrat, who will proceed with the same evil policies, but no doubt will do 'less evil' than a Republican...this is part and parcel of the language of genocide).

The principle of 'complementarity'

The principle of 'complementarity' forms the basis for a moral stance incorporating the genocidal principle. The genocidal ideology can be seen as "both destructive and redemptive." What can be seen as 'destructive and evil' is on the other hand the "a means of human redemption". Examples of this include the Nazi ideology of genocide against the Jews (which would 'save Germany' by preventing the nation from being undermined by Jewish subversion) or the weapons of mass destruction (which while being genocidal, also 'keep the peace') or the promotion of disparities in wealth and power by such organizations as the IMF which will 'foster capital investment' and thus 'after some painful adjustments, end poverty.' The problem with complementarity in deology is that the "two positions cannot be combined or reconciled with one another because that would lead to the mismeasure or distortion of one of them," and therefore it becomes a requirement that the mind function in such a way as to create 'precisely that reconciliation...a blending of ultimate destruction and human redemption' which results in the 'mystical expressions' of genocidal ideology. (GM pg 112) The end result is an unsolved dilemma, encapsulated in the notion of 'honorable sin,' leaving proponents to struggle intellectually to "live out its fundamental contradiction." (GM 121)

It is characteristic of genocidal ideologies to be riddled with inconsistencies, one of the most notable being when architects of genocide claim to be 'fighting Hitler' or when Christians who have absorbed the Christian doctrine of genocide claim to be fighting genocidal devils, while nevertheless participating in genocide themselves. For example, we see such Christians combating abortion, as a form 'genocide'. Currently, under the tutelage of the Bush administration, these religious types have been empowered by being appointed to the United Nations and various organizations responsible for 'family planning' in so called 'Third World' nations, where they are in the process of shutting down family planning clinics. At the same time they support the systems of genocide that cause between 30 and 40 thousand children to die of malnourishment every day, and that are responsible for a mortality rate of up to one quarter among children under five.

While condemning 'genocidal abortion' (and constantly equating abortion clinics with the Nazis and doctors with Mengele at Auschwitz) they nevertheless then proceed, compelled by religious Christian dogmas of genocide, to damn children to hell for 'not accepting Jesus' at what is called in Christian dogmatism surrounding religious genocide, 'the age of responsibility' (usually around the age of four or five) - or as I prefer to call it, 'the age of damnation.' One way or the other, while the language of Christian genocide is cloaked in the language of 'healing' the end result is the damnation of children to one form of genocidal hell or another. Someone once pointed out this inherent hypocrisy to Phyllis Schafly, a right wing Christian anti-feminist, who responded that while abortion was 'murder' the death by hunger of millions of children who would then be born was 'a natural death' and thus acceptable. Genocidal ideologies are always found to be riven with just these kinds of internal contradictions, notably the contradiction of having the architects of genocide always found to be making the claim of 'fighting Hitler' or 'resisting genocide' (this inconsistency cloaked in the Christian genocidal formulation that makes the claim encapsulated in the slogan 'choose life' to describe an ideology that is the very archetype of modern day genocidal systems).

Socialized critics

An important element in the maintenance of ideologies of genocide is the function of the 'decent' advocate of genocide, who occupies a moderate position, and stands against the 'extremism' of more committed ideologues. The 'moderate' retains allegiance to the overall ideology of genocide, preferring to be 'more reasonable' and 'more credible', in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies and contradictions at the core of the genocidal endeavor. Because the moderate is personally committed to the genocidal enterprise, they retain "considerable admiration for the 'integrity' of the very extremist they see themselves combating" for they are also caught up in the mysticism of genocide. Their position as moderate "enables them to be favorably viewed by the majority of people" in contrast to the 'extremists' and thus these moderates are "enormously helpful to the genocidal enterprise." (GM pg. 125)

In order for the genocidal enterprise to proceed, whether it be the massive spending on weapons of mass destruction or the massive destruction caused by policies designed to create poverty and destruction on the planet, it is very important that entire societies become socialized to accept genocidal ideology. This socialization is achieved through the process of mystification, held in place in particular by mythologies concerning the nation as being "good, very special, even blessed,"and (GM pg 134) combined with ideologies of necessity (this has to be done) righteousness (the task is a moral imperative) and inevitability, usually masked using the language of 'pragmatism' (the genocidal task is unavoidable, and it is 'utopian' to think otherwise, or, to use Borg language, 'resistance is futile').

A further part of this mystification involves the portrayal of other architects of similar genocidal systems as a kind of demon. (The Nazi worker of genocide was a devil, an innately immoral and bad person, is the mythology promoted by Hollywood and popularly accepted history, and this mythological thinking also helps to reinforce and propel forward the genocidal machine by propagating mythologies of 'good and evil' which serve to allow people to separate themselves from becoming aware of the true nature of genocidal systems.)

Socialized critics can thus be seen to be an important part of the maintenance of the mystification and justification of the genocidal system. The ideology of such critics can be summarized as 'working within the system.' In some respects then, they resemble 'good and decent' people working at Auschwitz, because the system is inevitable, and it would be wrong or irresponsible for the good to stand aside and allow only the evil to work the genocidal levers of power. In this way, socialized critics remain in the system while opposing many of its policies and practices. They maintain 'a permanent professional bond" with the system of genocide while at the same time they 'worry greatly about the world." Their criticisms take the form of questioning whether or not such and such a genocidal policy would place the nation 'at a disadvantage' or whether it would 'create instability'. "I review what they are doing, and I give them suggestions as to how to do it better as long as they doing it in any case." Working within the restraints of the genocidal system, as a socialized critic "adds credibility' to the system. Such critics continue to work with the genocidal system while 'promoting peace' and at the same time acting as a kind of consultant to the system, because "you have much more influence as an insider." (GM pg 137-8)

This process of socialization has been referred to as a 'transfer of conscience' where conscience no longer stands between the victims of genocide and the system, but rather "is instead directed towards loyalty to the professional group and its overall project," a process which is facilitated when highly respected professionals adopt the stance of socialized critics. The genocidal system is unavoidable, unstoppable, because "that's the way things are." Remaining within the system gives one a mystical sense of power, combined with impotence, which was also characteristic of the numbing experienced by Nazi doctors and Gestapo death camp operatives.(GM pg 148)

Disassociation and doubling

In the end the genocidal system leaves individuals wrestling with its internal contradictions, leading to a struggle with the process of disassociation and doubling. In working to establish systems of genocide it is required that the psyche be kept separate from the end results of the work, whether this involves ignoring the hideous consequences of genocidal weapons, or the suffering caused by 'neo-liberalism' and its transference of wealth to the top, or the permanent systemic harm caused by maintaining the 'free market' while creating slums and malnourishment as a means of 'fighting inflation'.

The dissociation required leads to doubling, the creation of a separate self, and as for the consequences of genocide, "You don't that think about that...If you start thinking about that too much, you are not going to be able think...very creatively' about new ways to advance the genocidal system. "You usually do that with two personalities, and you kind of move them forward and back depending on the circumstances." "These inner divisions in officials (are) associated with public contradictions and private confusions." (GM pg 150-1)

Dissociation of this type leads to a 'failed mysticism' where "beliefs are choppy, unformed, and bound up with ultimate helplessness." The socialized critic is faced "with a larger force that (no one) can be expected to stand up against." .Like the Auschwitz doctors and Gestapo guards, they feel no personal responsibility since it was a much larger power that created the camps of genocide and so "that all, they, the doctors, could do was to perform their duty and render the killing more 'humane'." Something similar can be seen to be happening in the minds of Democrats who adopt the attitude of impotence and then, having accepted the system, feel duty bound to make living in the resulting slums 'more humane'. So then as the socialized critic "maintain their creative momentum via their adaptive dissociation and doubling...it becomes all to easy to say (of their involvement in systems of genocide and ecocide) 'It is a terrible thing but we have to do it'." (GM pg 155) The mystification of the goals of the genocidal system remains, whether it be 'the betterment of society' or 'the ending or poverty' and this mythology which mystifies the internal contradictions of genocide lends irresistible momentum to the system since "a very large part of their self esteem [derives] from their participation in what they believe to be an essential-even a holy-cause' leading to 'active inertia' as far as the destructive progress of the genocidal system is concerned, combined with 'passive inertia' on the part of the individual. (GM 158)

It is important then for genocidal ideologies to provide a "structure of thought...fully consistent with genocide" so that the genocidal actions required "had meaning to its perpetrators. The totalistic ideology and its 'leader principle' provided justification" for performing the very acts that were so destructive. "Great ideological energy is expended in rendering the cause as a life and death struggle." so that the killing which is implicit in the genocidal system can mystified to become "the quest for more life...more health...requiring an continuous search for increasingly radical solutions." (GM pg 160) After a time, the process becomes 'irreversible, the genocidal mentality held sway, both because of its increasing strength and because it required continuing killing to maintain momentum and to justify all the killing already done." (GM pg 172)

None of this wide spread destruction, the increase of poverty and misery, the ecocide and genocide, could have happened without "a broadly entrenched genocidal mentality, and without the active contribution to that mentality by professionals and bureaucratic institutions in extending it to the general population." (GM pg 172) Dissociation must become so complete that they become "like a man following a trail of bloodstained footprints through the snow without realizing someone has been injured." (GM pg 194)

In defense of Idealist Moralism versus 'pragmatism'

Genocidal ideology can be found to be cloaked in the language of 'pragmatism. Indeed, it is impossible for those who have given their adherence to systems of genocide or ecocide to speak of their allegiance using anything other than the language of pragmatism. The genocidal enterprise is 'inevitable' and to reject it is to be a 'utopian', an 'idealist' who refuses to face reality, and whose 'moralizing' attitude fails to comprehend that compromises are required for the sake of being practical. This attitude can be particularly troublesome when it is espoused by socialized critics who find it necessary to 'work within' the genocidal system, recognizing its genocidal and ecocidal nature, and adopting the 'pragmatic' approach of making a system of genocide 'more humane'.

After all, they don't do it, someone else will. If good people do not become pragmatic and work with the system of genocide then only evil people will do so, and the result will be a system of genocide that would be even less humane than is the case today. Adopting the pragmatic approach of the moderate is the sensible way to deal with genocidal systems in that it represents 'the lesser of two evils.' Thus, in being pragmatic, even the socialized critic is frequently forced to acknowledge that 'working for change within the system of genocide' results in the doing of evil, in effect, acts as another pillar of support for systems of genocide, but this is rationalized using the language of pragmatism that is found to permeate genocidal societies, in that while the doing of evil is foregone conclusion, one should choose 'the lesser of two evils' and strive for a more humane system of genocide.

Being an idealistic moralist myself I have grown accustomed over the years to being dismissed as a matter of course. No sooner do people understand that they are listening to the words of an Idealistic Moralist than they automatically dismiss what is being said as 'unrealistic', the great criticism that an Idealistic Moralist must face being that one is 'unrealistic' and 'unpragmatic'.

Now if the truth be told, Idealistic Moralism is the only truly pragmatic philosophical approach, and the fact that so called 'moderates' or 'humanists' are perpetually unable to see this simple fact has always been one of the great puzzles and frustrations of my life.

Let us consider 'the war on poverty.' A pragmatic moderate would suggest that we fight poverty the way Democrats fight poverty, by giving everyone 'a New Deal' or by striving to build 'a Great Society'. A true Idealistic Moralist would never consent to join in on such an internally inconsistent project, because, you see, Idealist Moralists are much to pragmatic to be wasting their time on something so uselessly contradictory. As I mentioned previously, it is an unavoidable fact of free market systems that poverty be created (the process being called 'fighting inflation' which results in the creation of slums and poverty, since by definition, to do otherwise would be to nullify the free market). While pragmatic Democrats will adopt the moderate position of normalizing genocidal systems by striving to make the slums 'more humane' an Idealistic Moralist will go carping from the sidelines about what a waste of time such an endeavor really is. This will anger pragmatists, who will then attempt to get people on board for evil, which is a lesser form of evil, a more humane form of genocide, and great is their outrage when there are those who dissent, their rational being that in doing this you are 'allowing greater evil.' One is therefore left with the choice between evil or evil, and if one is sensible, one always knows that any so called 'war on poverty' waged in this context will be nothing but a conscience easing exercise in futility, and the only good thing that can result from such a thing is that moderates can feel better about themselves, even though a sensible analysis demonstrates that they will accomplish next to nothing. Even worse is that the repressed psychological doubling and internal logical contradictions result in new forms of evil, moderate 'liberal' evils, such as blaming the victim.

What is even more ironic is that 'moderates' who practice what they like to call 'pragmatism' lend credibility to the genocidal enterprise, and in doing so they contribute to very 'inevitability' of genocide, which they then decry as the very reason for the need for pragmatism. Sometimes you will hear the bit about 'losing the middle class' by abandoning some supposed middle road. This is curious, since one would be lucky to have half the population turn out for an election in a place like America, where half the population is already alienated from the entire political system. This is not surprising when you consider that they are being offered choices in evil. The choice is between genocide and genocide, and the wide spread alienation is a symptom of the very 'inevitability' of systems of genocide which pragmatic moderates help to cement into place by lending credibility to the system by functioning as 'moderate critics' and thus normalizing genocidal systems.

So then we can see two problems immediately, in that not only is 'moderation' not pragmatic at all, even though there are those who constantly insist that reconciling two impossible contradictions is supposed to represent 'progressive thought' and 'pragmatism' this approach also contributes to the inevitability of genocidal systems, which has resulted in the wide spread alienation that we see in societies today. Nevertheless, socialized critics will insist on taking a pragmatic approach toward genocide on the supposed grounds that in just this way they will avoid being seen as 'idealistic utopians' and thus alienate what they seem to think is some great base of support that exists for humane systems of genocide.

Now by criticizing the genocidal system, and working to expose its ideological functions, perhaps one cannot hope to immediately change the architects of genocide by stripping them of their supposed armor plating, but at the very least one could hope to make them less comfortable in their skins. One could hope to make them conscious of the workings of the genocidal system of which they have become a part through the process of cultural socialization, and by exposing its contradictions, one can make it more and more difficult for the 'natural self' to coexist with the 'genocidal self' in the act of doubling and dissociation which is required by all systems of genocide. One can hopefully make more difficult the process of derealization which allows great harm to be done to people while remaining numb to the pain genocidal systems cause, and in this way, at the very least, socialized 'progressives' can be made more uncomfortable in their skins, rather than being shielded and protected from genocide through the mythological comforts afforded by a self image of 'progressive dissent'.

And who knows, an Idealist Moralist might even someday be able to work some real changes by hurling acid onto the genocidal coat of armor that reinforces the socialization to genocide in this place, and by exposing the contradictions of the system of genocide, the time might come when something worthwhile can be done to protect the planet from the wide spread destruction of both genocide and ecocide.

In the end, it is ironic, but the only really practical and pragmatic approach is to become an Idealistic Moralist, since every other approach is simply not practical. In truth, Idealistic Moralism is the world's only truly pragmatic philosophy, and the so called 'utopian' solutions are the only ones that actually stand a chance of working, since they have been stripped of the contradictions which plague all so called 'real world' solutions, which is why the real world is going to hell in hand basket after being left for so long in the destructive hands of pragmatists, and subject to the reforms of moderates, who, because they actually empower systems of genocide, are often left puzzled as to why after years and years of effort, they find the planet moving irresistibly towards an abyss despite all their years of effort. Of course, when you look at the world through the eyes of pragmatist, an Idealistic Moralist, it becomes obvious that they never could have succeeded and one must wonder what sort of powerful socializing force was present that left them so enraptured by the prevailing genocidal ideology that they were unable to accept this simple fact.

In the end I find myself left with two options, that I am aware of at this time. (People change over time, their vision becomes clearer, and at this stage of the game I can see two clear options.) The first is to do everything possible to make everyone as uncomfortable as possible. The second is to wait patiently for the disasters that are always the product of pragmatic amorality, a ruinous, genocidal philosophy that persistently leads the human race from one disaster to another, despite being constantly touted as 'pragmatic' and representing some sort of 'reasonable compromise' (the ever so famous 'lesser of two evils'). And fear is perhaps one of the better motivators for change, certainly more powerful a tool than appealing to the moral instincts of a generation that has been polluted by the pragmatic philosophy of genocide, and while disaster is far away in the distance, or while derealization allows the numbing to the pain caused today, as looming disaster approaches ever nearer, fear can become the greatest argument in favor of 'utopia' and Idealistic moralism.

Other arguments can be made in favor of this type of unyielding moralism, and one of the stronger examples is that of 'self interest'. For you see, the struggle of poor people sweating away in sweat shops, is also the struggle of those in wealthier nations. Perhaps not right away, perhaps their is still time to derealize the pain of others so far away, but the day comes ever closer when self interest becomes common interest, if people want to survive, and common interest works against the interests of the few which have been socialized in the form of these genocidal ideologies, since, in the end, a genocidal ideology is an expression of selfish immorality which sacrifices the common good in service of personal gain.

You see, it is during the day of disaster that Idealistic Moralism shines, and I would say then to those who would like to shine someday (even if one must be shit on today) then I highly recommend the adoption of the so called 'utopian' philosophy of a dedicated Idealistic Moralist. The entire history of the human race up to this point in time has consisted of 'pragmatic' acceptance of one system of genocide after another, followed by one terrible disaster after another, until we come to the modern time, when suddenly the scale of the calamities to come exceed any other horrific disaster that has ever followed in the past as the dubious reward of pragmatic forms of immorality. As we sit on the horrifying edge of the precipice and see such terrible sights as the sacrilegious sin of wide spread ecocide taking place in order to maintain 'quarterly profits' and social inequality, we can see that the scale of the approaching calamities outstrips anything ever possible before in human history, just as warfare has reached the point of becoming genocidal madness, as the world is gripped with fear of its own genocidal weapons of mass destruction : all this indicates that days of pragmatic immorality are behind us as a species. As Einstein described this emerging situation, 'Humanity will require a whole new way of thinking, if we are to survive..."


great work brent 12.Oct.2003 23:21

indy volunteer

I thought it would be nice to have an easy way to jump to the different parts so here that is. I hope you get some good feedback from these articles here.

The Genocidal Mentality, Pt 1: The 'free market' as genocidal ideology

The Genocidal Mentality, Pt 2: The Great Humanitarian Wars

The Genocidal Mentality Pt 3: In defense of Idealistic Moralism vs 'Pragmatism'