The Guilt Trip

The abusive relationship between commoners and their "authorities"

Besides raw muscle, the most common methods of controlling the disenfranchised in history assigned guilt to the subjects, who obediently assumed the role of the guilty, and were convinced they deserved their fate. When a religion becomes a state ideology, it MUST feature this characteristic, because it pacifies the subjects and solidifies internal peace and stability. As this is a required feature of all state ideologies, this alone does not invalidate the fundamental tenets of a religion; in fact, under such circumstances, religion itself falls victim to social engineering, and its leaders become representatives of the state (as it happend during the practice of “investiture” in the Roman Catholic church before the times of Reformation). Subjects must “behave well” in order to make it to heaven, Nirvana, or born again and achieve full buddhahood.

When psychologists write about the technique, they usually discuss it as abusive or psychopathic behavior (one doesn’t have to be a psychopath to behave as such, and such labeling is dangerous, anyway). It relies on constantly putting down the other party, depriving them of their self-respect, which bounds the victim to the abuser, not unlike victims of Stockholm-syndrome, who even defend their prison guards.

How about a few recent examples? Here are a few trifles for the powerful:

1. Mandate your subjects to declare and exercise nonsense; that will surely humiliate them enough to take care of their individuality, whose anomalies present the most severe threats to the system.

2. Muzzle them and force them to take painful, life-threatening, toxic, and humiliating “tests” and inject them with poisonous substances. Tell them later they have been had, which ridicules them, shames them, and proves to them that their pea-brains are no good for anything.

3. Gaslight them to lose even the little confidence they have left after the several episodes of humiliation.

4. Tax them until they breathe their last, and spend their money on yourself.

5. Force them to have bank accounts, if they want to get paid for their slave labor.

6. Force them to ask for permits to do everyday things like moving around freely, exercising self-defense, or even collecting rainwater on their own property which, of course, they do not really own:

7. Amorilize them to make sure they cannot use their cultural heritage as a basis for comparison. First, tell them everything is relative, so even acting upon their basest urges is justified. Next, encourage them to do anything they wish for (e.g. “women’s lib” and “sexual freedom” came up first to turn the sexes against each other, and voting rights for those who don’t contribute ensued; not that voting matters, but the electorate can always be blamed for the acts of their “choice”). In the next step, show them that they have not done enough; they can go further (kind of like “50 Shades of Gray”: condoning self-righteousness as well as all forms of perversion). For closure, punish them for non-compliance.

8. Give them choices that are equally bad for them. For instance, a “compliance officer” immediately closed my bank account during the Great Plandemic of 2020, when I asked the bank, “Which way should I be guilty: enter a financial institution with a face cover (which is a federal crime), or enter the bank without one, which is against regulations?”

I also explored such paths a lot more comprehensively in