Based on some introspective observations as both a real or imagined oppressor and a real or imagined victim, I have worked late or fiendishly in my midnight lab and formulated what I call The First Law of Tyranny (or in moments of vanity, The Hinrichs Doctrine). Simply stated, it is:
Every oppressor views himself as a victim.
That’s generalization, I realize, I haven’t personally read the mind of every oppressor in history, but I ask you to assume that many hideous acts have been rationalized by focusing on a real or imagined (I’ve now used that three times, so will substitute “ROI” as I continue. Please do not confuse it with “Return On Investment", despite any similarities you might perceive) grievance. The ROI estranged lover murders his ROI lady or the ROI interloper, or both. The ROI dictator rounds up the ROI dissidents and slaughters them. We’re all too familiar with crimes and motives to make real life examples a necessity.
Thought exercise: Imagine yourself a random victim and attempt to formulate the motives of the person who attacked you. First ask why anyone at all was attacked and then why you were chosen. This is a valid test because it excludes complicity of the victim.
Evil alone is not sufficient motive. That exists in the mind of the victim only. In his own mind, the oppressor is seeking vindication for an ROI offense. Before the violence begets violence theory, held credible over two millennia until 9/11, lost credence, Evil was the realm of Freddy Krueger and an endless stream of increasingly worse sequels. Evil was passé; it was in a bear market.
If the law of the converse is true, then Good must have been getting Better and Better at the same time. I’ve only made a few points, you can draw the lines – and when you have, you might discover a reductio ad absurdum, or RAA as you learned studying logic.
The RAA here is simple:
· Violence is caused by evil alone and not by previous acts of violence
· The only rational response to violence is to punish it with more violence
You assume that something does not exist then prove it does by establishing a contradiction based on that assumption. Say good night, Gracie.
A more troubling law of tyranny is in the works. It is not well thought out at this point but it has some tantalizing possibilities. It is simply the converse of the First Law:
Every victim views himself as an oppressor
Go back to the Thought Exercise. Did you find any scenario in which you blamed yourself? This should be easy, since “blaming the victim” is so universal that it is easily internalized. You have cancer? Did you ever smoke? This natural weakness is easily exploited by the ROI oppressor, leading to, well, a cycle of violence, dammit. The underdog grows resentful and possibly more powerful; the top dog becomes overconfident and vulnerable. Then, in a cosmic Whoosh, they change positions. Then violence begets violence and not long after there is a flurry of begetting that rivals the Biblical proportions of 1 Chronicles 2.
3:57:53 AM 
|
