My Dear Screwtape,
You
pose an excellent follow-up question, my sweet subordinate, though you could’ve
posed it more delicately. If the Enemy draws humans together for His purposes,
aren’t our purposes best served by keeping them apart? See? That’s a much nicer
way of putting it.
The
answer is that the inclination among humans to interact with one another is
innate. Even the most introverted among them has some desire to connect with
another person. There are several means whereby these humans connect with one
another – we may call them, “ties”. The primary categories are familial,
neighborly, utilitarian, and social.
Family
and neighbors are easy to describe. Most know who their family is and most know
their neighbors – though neighborly ties are becoming more and more frayed.
Neighbors are other humans encountered regularly in proximity of one’s home.
They have little deep knowledge about one another but they exchange ritual
pleasantries, look out for one another’s property, and even help each other
with a minor task from time to time. To sow strife among neighbors, we usually
strike at the aspects of character that cause one to either be overly involved
in the affairs of their neighbors or closed off to the point of open hostility
in the face of sincere interest.
Coworkers
fit under utilitarian. These are the people with whom they conduct their
occupation. I include the staff to supervisor relationship in this category as
well. They have coworkers they like and those whom they dislike. But, for our
purposes, they’re quite similar to neighbors in that we can strike at them the
same ways. At times, we can do so quite easily because they are often forced to
deal pleasantly with people whom they despise. Neighbors can always avoid one
another but coworkers not so easily.
The
strangest ties are social ones. This is a very unique category because the individual
has no say over who their family is and fairly limited say in who their
neighbors and coworkers are. Social ties are those which one chooses to have
with someone else. When we talk about our advantage in a human’s isolation, it
is these ties which we must unravel first. Families, neighbors, and coworkers
are not ties that can be easily unraveled, and we’re not all that certain that
we’d want to considering the advantage such relationships afford us. If we can
damage friendships, we can leave the individual to be ripped apart by his or
her obligations to the other three groups.
The
way to poison such relationships is to encourage a false fulfillment of the
desire to connect with others - social junk food if you will; something that
tastes good, is attractive, and even provides pleasure at times but offers
little in the way of true nourishment. A fellow stubbornly pursuing an unrequited
love, a woman addicted to an abusive boyfriend, or a homely bookish type
invited out among a group of ‘fashionable’ people solely for their amusement –
these are the types of social relationships in which we delight. They appear
real but ultimately leave the spirit emaciated.
But,
alas, it is not a perfect world for our breed and such connections can often
result in an ultimate realization of their superficial nature…and this can
prove most disastrous. What we’re attempting in our new approach – the approach
to which you are instructing your students – is creating a new form of social
connection similar to how a church may operate.
People
attend churches willingly and often to fill a spiritual void. The church
encourages socialization amongst its members and often – to our dismay – lead
to wholesome friendships. What we’re after is to fill such a void by asking
people to dedicate themselves to a purpose. The purpose must appear good, but be
rooted in what they dislike. We’ve had success in the past with such groups
like the Ku Klux Klan, but membership has dwindled with the increasing
tolerance for people of other races, religions, and ethnicities. The key is
that the group must be entirely contrarian and offer strict guidelines to
distinguish the “us” from the “them”.
It
may seem antithetical to our previous strategy of social isolation, but believe
me when I say that a preference for social isolation must first be rooted in something
that seems good. In these instances, an individual’s lust for power over a
particular group will lead to in-fighting and accusations that certain leaders
are not “one of us”. Soon the ground starts shrinking around who “us” really is
until only the self is left. But if we are to succeed in leading them into this,
we must do so by appealing to their urge to connect with others. Our job is
complete once they’re convinced any genuine connections are impossible.
Your
Merciful Master,
Slubgob
No comments:
Post a Comment