Exposing Evil: a few helpful excerpts from around the internet.

Exposing Evil

Normalize

• to make normal

A common occurrence or tactic among the misguided is to attempt to make evil appear to be virtuous. The fallen angels are all liars. A demon can appear as a being of light, but a demon's appearance is merely a disguise hiding darkness and ruin. If we could see them for what they are, we would be repulsed by their hideousness, the hideousness of their rejection of God and His will for man. So, it is no coincidence that those humans who choose to ally (alloy?) themselves with evil do so by guilding sinful behaviour with the gold of normalcy or acceptability. That is, because a human does 'it' - whatever 'it' might be - or is capable of doing 'it', 'it' must be ok.

Reinforcers

• Pseudoscience and scientism: to create alarm and dependence
• Neopuritanism: homogeneity (pseudo-justice) through micromanagement
• Coercion: by gaslighting, shaming or guilt-tripping to depersonalize and effect submission

Outcome

• morally repugnant behaviour acceptable
• forced capitulation with evil
• enslavement to sin

The above descriptors are a summary of a highly complex series of interrelated phenomena which, to anyone assisted by faith and reason who can see the evidence, inhibit authentic freedom and rob souls of their fundamental dignity.

Pseudoscience

• Foundations - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8753

Harvard neuroscientist and philosopher Joshua Greene, as good an example of scientism as anyone, has stated that his goal as a scientist is "to reveal our moral thinking for what it is: a complex hodgepodge of emotional responses and rational (re)constructions, shaped by biological and cultural forces . . ." There it is. For Greene — as for all good proponents of scientism — not only do conscience and morality have no objective meaning or content or even less do they come from God, the human person is ultimately understood to be no more than the product of cultural and biological forces.

Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, provides a good definition of scientism: "Scientism is the scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings" (No. 1783).

• https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/does-the-church-oppose-science

But should we accept scientism? Is it true that science and science alone provides the truth? Scientism goes beyond the uncontroversial view that science provides many truths to make the bold claim that science alone provides truth.

We can ask, what scientific evidence is there that science alone provides the truth? Can we find this truth in chemistry? In physics? In biology? What scientific experiment proves that science alone provides the truth? What is the empirical evidence that shows that we should only believe claims backed by empirical evidence?

It turns out that science does not show that science alone provides the truth. There is no empirical evidence to support the claim that we should only believe claims supported by empirical evidence. Given this lack of scientific proof, scientism is a self-refuting view. Scientism cannot be true because scientism undermines itself. It is not just Catholic faith but philosophical consistency that calls for the rejection of scientism.

Neo-Puritanism

• https://medium.com/@BreyenCanfield/neo-puritanism-the-erosion-of-free-speech-and-dissent-2c7bae313607

Traditionally, wars are fought between two distinguishably identifiable belligerents. State v. State; or State v. Revolutionary Actor; or State v. Terrorist Actor; each side identifies its own as the good, and identifies the other as the bad. However, the neo-Puritans are employing two counterintuitive tactics (possibly) designed to shift the nature of the modern American culture war into one unwinnable for anyone involved. First, they are perniciously identifying their enemy as the war goes on. Second, they are relying on victimhood as a means to victoryhood. Neither of these tactics are standard, but both seem to be proving effective.

At every turn of the page there is a new story detailing a neo-Puritanical proclamation that they have a new enemy. Individually, these so-called Social Justice Warriors are no more than spoiled incompetents with an illusory view of reality and cooperation. Collectively, as with any movement, additional adherents birth increasing force. And, with this particular group, their ever-shifting perception of the out-group as evil-doers increases that force exponentially. Anyone can be an aggressor, at any time, at any place, without warning. One-on-one these Warriors may be talked to, reasoned with, or compromised with. However, given the relative comfort of perceiving oneself as a victim, the group is growing at a terrifying and dangerous rate, now effecting more change than awkward Thanksgiving dinner conversations about what one’s first-year Sociology professor taught about what Columbus really did when he landed in the Bahamas. The individual has necessarily given way to the group, and the group is counterproductively destroying its host: academia.

Narcissists, Controllers, and the Art of Blame-Shifting

Understanding a tactic that keeps a toxic person in the driver's seat

• https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/tech-support/202006/narcissists-controllers-and-the-art-blame-shifting

The term gaslighting has filtered into the public consciousness as part of our continuing fascination with all things pertaining to narcissism. And while gaslighting is certainly a strategy people who need to control employ—whether they be parents or lovers or spouses or friends or employers—there’s another we should be talking about just as much: Blame-shifting. The latter is, in some ways, more subtle than gaslighting, and way harder to see. Let’s take a look at the two and do what English teachers call a compare-and-contrast exercise, shall we? (Yes, I was one once.)

Gaslighting versus blame-shifting

To be clear, both tactics are verbally abusive and depend on an imbalance of power in the relationship between the person using them and the person on the receiving end; the powerless intended target is usually very invested in the relationship, most likely loves or cares deeply about the abuser, and is often dependent on him or her. The person doing the gaslighting or blame-shifting is actually more interested in feeling powerful or in control (and the buzz that comes with it) than they are emotionally connected to their target.

What is gaslighting precisely? It takes its name from a play and then a 1944 movie called Gaslight starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. In it, Boyer manipulates Bergman and distracts her from his criminality by trying to convince her that she is going insane. And that’s what gaslighters do: They make the target believe that his or her grip on reality is tenuous at best and non-existent at worst. The most common tactics are insisting that something that happened didn’t, dismissing a claim by saying it was simply imagined, or telling the person flat out that she or he is losing it or crazy. Gaslighters exploit their target’s fears, insecurities, vulnerabilities, and neediness to their own ends.

While it takes some concerted effort to gaslight another adult—even a needy or insecure one—gaslighting a child is remarkably easy because of the enormous power and authority a parent has by definition. What child can stand up to the words “You’re imagining it because it never happened” when uttered by her or his mother or father, each of whom is the ruler of the very small universe in which the child lives?

Blame-shifting also exploits whatever disparity in power exists in the relationship and, again, is remarkably easy in a parent-child relationship. But, between adults, it has certain subtleties that gaslighting does not and, as a net, it catches more fish. This behavior is always about power and the sad truth is that the victim tends to be the one who loves, needs, and depends on her or his abuser in ways that are significantly different from the motivations of the person shifting blame.

How blame-shifting works

This particular form of manipulation depends on the abuser really knowing your weaknesses and tendencies; among them might be your steadfast avoidance of conflict or your proclivity to play the peacemaker; your tendency to backtrack on your positions; your desire to please; your own insecurities and doubts about yourself; and your tendency to question the validity of your thoughts and feelings. Most of the people caught in this web grew up in households where their emotional needs weren’t met and were unloved, unsupported, or downright picked on in their families of origin. This is also true of the abuser but he or she has learned to cope differently.

Mind you, most of the time the abuser doesn’t look you in the face and say “This is all your fault because…” although he or she might from time-to-time; it’s usually stealthier than that. Let’s say you complained about his or her behavior and the argument escalated until suddenly the abuser says, “I wouldn’t have acted that way if you weren’t always nagging me” or “If you didn’t always start in when I am dead tired from work, I wouldn’t lose my temper” or “If you weren’t always focused on you and your needs, we wouldn’t be fighting.” The chances are good that the guilt-tripping works because you want this relationship to thrive and suddenly you feel awful and you hear yourself apologize. Since your goal is to have things work out between you, you don’t even see you’ve been played.

I am sorry to say that this actually happened to me. I did notice early in my relationship to a man who turned out to be highly narcissistic that he had an odd way of deflecting the conversation when I discovered he hadn’t been entirely truthful about something I asked him about. He would always say, “If you had asked the right question, I would have given you the answer.” These were white lies and omissions and I wrongly attributed his way of dealing to his profession as a litigator and his poor communication with his former wife. I could not have been more wrong, and, yes, eventually, it devolved into blame-shifting. The only good news is that I didn’t fall for it.

Why narcissists and controllers blame-shift

The obvious answer is that it permits them to dodge responsibility for their words and actions; what’s more convenient than having a ready fall guy or a scapegoat? Plus, being right all the time is a dandy confirmation for the narcissist, reinforcing how strong and superior he or she is, despite the deep shame that sits at the core of the self like a poisoned pit. An allied tactic is what Craig Malkin in his book Rethinking Narcissism calls “playing emotional hot potato,” which is another way of looking at projection: The narcissist ascribes what he or she is feeling to the target. That too undermines the target’s sense of her own perceptions; even though she can see that he is red in the face, his jaw muscles working, and his arms closely held against his chest, he is telling her that it’s her anger that is wrecking the relationship. And she is apt to believe it.