Pretty good thesis here:
It sometimes seems as if the primary purpose of the mainstream modern world is (when not inculcating fear) to cultivate resentment.
Resentment is, in my estimation one of the most evil of sins, because of its characteristic to grow – by feeding upon itself, by brooding upon grievances, by finding confirmation wherever it look, and by stimulating others to behave in a way that apparently justified resentment. Resenters are seldom popular with those they resent, so resentment tends to lead to grounds-for-resentment…
Resentment: shun it – Gratitude: nurture it
I.e. The M0 virus, except it’s grievance-mongering spiteful mutants instead of dopamine-chasers setting the people responsible for civilization on fire (because it’s the only way they can have fun after frying their dopamine receptors with drugs). One of my fantasy projects is to write a book called “Religion of Resentment” showing how Judaism is an ethnic religious spin on revenge porn, and how the unwillingness to forgive and move on is the same thing as narcissism (both the psychopathic and neurotic variants). Tie that in with the info in Twenge and Woodley’s books and you’ve got a pretty good stab at the mechanics of the Glubb cycle.
Well, let’s just stop right there! Because in reality there are No grounds-for-resentment – and the idea that there are such grounds is a part of the sin encouraging atmosphere of many social circumstances. For example, I have often heard it said that (given ‘history’) it is ‘not surprising’ or ‘understandable’ that – say – the Irish resent the English. Thus has soul-rotting resentment been celebrated and encouraged for generations*.
The fact is that resentment is evil – so there are never Any grounds for it; and we should not speak as if it were a natural response to maltreatment. Resentment may, like most other sins such as fear or lust, be ‘inevitable’ as an occurrence; but that does not make it Good.
This is because the primary harm of resentment is upon the soul of him who resents.
Yeah, but it is “not surprising” and “understandable” that people who don’t believe they have immaterial souls don’t feel any need to protect those souls from harm. As I’ve pointed out before, it’s likely impossible for a true believer in materialism to engage in moral behavior. Have you ever met someone who thought drugs were destroying their mind but they did them anyway? Of course not, every drug user thinks drugs are good for them, or they’re just so goddamn special that they can handle it without any problems. Any drug user that admits it’s bad for them will be looking to cut the habit.
The rest of Charlton’s post goes on in this vein, moralizing about how people who don’t share his values should live up to them. It’s not a bad bit of writing, but it’s the men without chests problem: we castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. There’s no more sense preaching to modern people about sin than there is about self-sacrificial heroism–their psychological conditioning to yield nothing in the pursuit of material self-interest is far too strong.
One bit of hope is that the Daily Shoah showed us how you break psychological conditioning: you make fun of it relentlessly. It cost them dearly but they have the historical distinction of being the ones who made anti-Semitism funny and cool. If you’re funny and charismatic enough, it eventually becomes easier for the audience to laugh with you than to hold on to their preconceived notions. I.e. When people are expecting the word “Holocaust” to be followed by a panic attack, but you relentlessly follow it up with a good joke, then it stops being scary. This proof of concept, that Holocaustianity political brainwashing is just an acquired trauma from public schooling and mass media that can be easily cured, is possibly as important as Mystery Method in the history of psychology.
Specific phobias also lie near the surface. Spiders, for example, are dangerous: They bite, and very rare ones might even kill you. There is an evolutionary history pushing you to feel this way, but while prepared, the specific content of phobias is not heritable. The belief that spiders are dangerous is hard to disconfirm if you avoid spiders altogether and never find out that if endured, spiders are much more scared of you than you are of them. The belief is of low power—it explains only spiders. With therapy, this fear can be extinguished almost completely—but the phobia may reappear when rekindled by other troubles.
Seligman, Martin E.P.. What You Can Change . . . and What You Can’t* . Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Panic lies at the surface. It turns out merely to be a mistaken belief that your heart racing is a symptom of heart attack, or that gasping for breath is a symptom of stroke. Very little else hinges on this belief, and so it is of low power. It is quite easy to disconfirm by showing a hyperventilating patient that his symptoms are symptoms of anxiety or overbreathing, not of heart attack. It does not seem to have a strong evolutionary history, and it is not heritable. When changed by therapy or evidence, panic is almost always cured.
And just because I can’t help but drive the point home with cringe:
So that’s why humor is de facto illegal now, under the new Constitution of Civil Rights as detailed by Christopher Caldwell. Luckily, deep down white people hold laughter to be sacred because they are designed for joy. You’ll never get them to prefer the company of joyless people, economically speaking, so enforcing a totalitarian anti-humor state is far, far more expensive than resistance. Good jokes are the cure to our new state religion of resentment. Charlton again:
If one were to add-together all the (billions of?) people in the world who are either self-identified members of a resentment/ victim group; with those whose self-imposed task is to encourage resentment and the perception of victim status (in politics, civil administration, charities and NGOs, corporations, schools and colleges, the police and military, religions, health services and so on…) – then we come to a very high proportion of the people in the world who are in a chronic state of self-righteous, hence unrepented, sin.
And because it is unrepented sin that leads most people to choose damnation and to reject the gift of Jesus; I think we must conclude that the powers of darkness have been extremely successful in corrupting this world to the point that (apparently) so many will opt for Hell, and despise any Heaven that requires them to drop their resentment.
I would say that, in general, damnation requires moral inversion – that is, the reversal of values: such that evil is seen as Good and vice versa. Mass resentment is a core example of value inversion. As is the fact that modern morality – and to such a high degree – is rooted-in the conviction that the sin of resentment is actually a virtue, and indeed defines virtue. To be a member of a victim group defined by active resentment is currently actually regarded as a moral plus!
The antidote to resentment is gratitude. First gratitude to God for creation, and for loving us as a parent. Second gratitude to those who love us… usually people from our family, in the first place – but also true friends, if we have any.