The Future Model of Human Consciousness Part I

Some Thoughts on The Recovering Scapegoat

In the end, the most important things in life are food, clothing, shelter, and healing.

Note to Reader:

PRC Writings is a fluid journal and so is undergoing continuous editing and revision. Since, like all of my writings, this essay is an interim report, there will be no attempt to be exhaustive, or to anticipate counter-arguments. However, unlike most interim reports, I don't let what I publish stand as is. Hence, the editing and revision. So what is presented here for the reader will no doubt continue to be modified. I am, however, reasonably convinced of its soundness to offer the present account of it.

But don't take my word for it. Simply test and use the ideas and categories of this essay and decide for yourself whether or not they are useful. In matters such as these, usefulness is all that one can hope for. My only wish is that the reader consider what is offered, even though they may choose to withhold final assent.

The aim here is to direct attention to two things that, together, help us understand the subject of this essay, the future model of human consciousness. One is the relationship between the possible and the actual, and the other is the analogy between the family scapegoat and the global scapegoat. Ultimately, the only instrument we have to think with is analogy and all we can do with it is predict. In that case, what I am predicting is that the analogy between the family and global scapegoat can be readily grasped by the reader, and its usefulness recognized and explored.

In any event, given the essay's content, it seemed appropriate to start things off with this Friendly Reminder to long time readers, and an equally friendly heads up and Welcome! to new readers as well. All the Best to All of You for The New Year!

Epuyen, Patagonia Argentina

December 25th 2025

Opening Remarks

Though not without their own share of irony - irony being one of the themes of PRC International - both the title of this essay, and the essay itself, are, nevertheless, sincerely meant. Neither one is the result of my having suffered from some unhappy brain contortion or delusion of grandeur. As to the irony, well, as I said, my aim is to direct attention to a possibility that for some has become an actuality. Now, obviously, before anything becomes actual it has to be possible. On the other hand, before anything becomes possible it has to first be inspiring. But, as everyeone knows, what is often inspiring, or desirable, is not always possible, and what is possible does not always become actual, and for any number of reasons that are often beyond our control. This situation, like life itself, is filled with irony. A fact that is important never to forget, but impossible not to. That we often forget what we should always remember only adds to the irony.

Oh well, so much for the irony. Now for the sincerity.

PRC Writings started in 2018. It grew out of my notes going back to the 1980's on a number of my favorite writers, the most important of course being the great cultural historian and behavioral theorist Morse Peckham (1914 - 1993).

Over time Writings came to enjoy a small but steady readership. But for the past two years or more that readership has grown. Inspired by this, I wanted to write something with a title that would restate the principle theme not just of PRC, but of my life, Cultural Transcendence, in a way that would make it unmistakably clear, to reader and writer, what I was really after.

So, having spent the last two years going over all of PRC Writings, even more than I already had been, as well as adding new entries along the way, I realized that what cultural transcendence really amounts to is nothing less than a new model of human consciousness. In fact, the model, since, as Peckham pointed out, and as I've mentioned in many entries, nothing else like it has ever appeared in human history for which we have a record. The irony in this case is the use of the word new, since what Peckham was referring to was Romanticism, from its beginning in the late 18th century, to its culmination, but not completion, with Modern Art in the early 20th century. 

However, the use of the word new here is still appropriate, given the fact that for most people today the model is not just new - it's unheard of. A fact that does not speak well of our teaching-learning institutions, but does help explain their deterioration, especially in the universities (for more, see here and here).

The realization, or rediscovery, of this new model was aided in large part by my commitment to three things, cultural transcendence, sobriety, and recovery from scapegoat abuse. Namely, in going No Contact, not only with my scapegoaters, or with all scapegoaters, but with scapegoating itself, since, as we shall see, scapegoating is very much a global phenomenon.*

*A better example of irony than going No Contact with a global phenomenon would be impossible to imagine. In that case, the idea here is a gesture toward No Contact.

Though these three are independent categories, and in no way mutually exclusive, they have become, for me, interdependent.

To be sure, one of the points I wish to make in this essay is that a group of people large enough to form a critical mass are now living out of these three roles without knowing it, and so without knowing how to respond. The result is a devastating social incoherence and corresponding and unprecedented culture crisis. This essay is one man's humble attempt to both direct attention to all of this and to suggest a possible way out, at least for some.

To these three it's worth adding two others; first, living in another culture far from home, where the individual quite literally has to learn how to walk and talk again, by learning a new language, and by trying to make their way around this new culture that has most definitely not rolled out the red carpet for them*; and second, entering middle age and the changes involved, best described by the popular phrase mid-life crisis, or even better, middle age crazy. Any one of these five is enough to destroy an individual, even one with social support and financial security. But, if the reader will permit a bit of autobiography, I went through all five at the same time, and with no social support and no financial security. It was like a giant hand squeezing my heart and head every single day - unendurable. Not surprisingly, and more than once, I almost didn't make it. Many don't. Many don't live long enough to tell their story, to share their life with someone that they love, and who loves them in return.

*In no way does this apply to the migrant invasion of Western Europe and North America perpetrated by a deranged and hostile elite in its efforts to destroy Western Civilization. Happily, both the propaganda (always cheezy and obnoxious), and the smears (projection), no longer seem to work on said elite's designated scapegoat, the host population of the West. But it does apply - ironically - to the host population, since the whole point of the hostile elite's Super Tyranny is to make that population feel like aliens in their own country.

None of this is mentioned to gain the sympathy of the reader. Rather, the reason for listing all five is to take an inventory, as they like to say in AA, and to state the facts, without which no recovery is possible. But you can hardly take an inventory if you don't know who it is for. In this essay our inventory list has to do with the recovering scapegoat, and will appear in Part II.

The list is, in a way, both my subject and justification.

Such an inventory list is seen as a way of understanding what happened in the past, where one stands in the present, and how one might better move toward a brighter, healthier future. It is, in short, a recovery tool. Unlike AA, however, in my case, it is an inventory that is more behavioral than moral, simply because an understanding of what we are actually doing is, as far as this writer is concerned, what is needed most right now. Besides, the behavioral subsumes the moral. Obviously. Since the only thing connecting morals, and morality, to the world is human behavior.

And by behavior is simply meant People Doing Things.

The use of the word behavior here is not to be confused, in any way, with the old academic behaviorism, or with its replacement, the cognitive revolution. The reason being that neither are behavioral enough. There are many reasons for this. But the most important is that neither one has ever said a word about the primary attribute of the human brain, randomness of response, the attribute to which all of human behavior is a response.

Randomness of response is the irreducible surd of human behavior. No randomness, no innovation, no innovation, no culture, no culture, no life, not for human beings, certainly not at this stage in our deveolopment. So why don't they mention it?

Leaving that deadly question aside for now, if human beings are reducible to genes and culture, nature-nurture, then the primary genetic attribute of the human brain is randomness of response.

But here problems arise. The whole point of AI Overview is to provide answers as if AI Overview is the final word. It isn't.

For example, search what is the primary attribute of the human brain, or even better, what is the primary genetic attribute of the human brain, and just look at the answers. What stands out?

Well, the fact that the answers to both questions are themselves question-begging. But don't take my word for it. Just look and see, as Wittgenstein used to say. What you'll see is that there is no mention of randomness of response at all, even though both answers lead irresistably to that attribute. If Google is going to Play God it would probably be a lot more convincing if they took the time to remove their logical fallacies before publication.

To put it baldly, randomness of response is so easy to verify in humans (just look at infants and children and consider the obvious and all important need for them to be socialized properly if they are to develop full humanity, which is not happening today the world over), that one is inclined to raise curious doubts about its omission in AI Overview's answer. That is to say, one is inclined to raise curious doubts about AI Overview. That is, until one searches for an answer to who programs AI Overview?

Anyway, either the programmers don't know about the brain's capacity for randomness and its relation to human culture, not to mention the consequences, which are immense, or their bosses don't want you to know. Perhaps they do know. But let's say that they don't know. In that case it would certainly go a long way toward explaining their incompetence. Now, if they do know, well, that would explain their Old Testament-like fear of losing their power should the world start to put two and two together. Though, no doubt the fear and incompetence of the hostile elite, et al. would obtain whether or not they know about this attribute.

The point is, both of these intellectual "disciplines", run by those who answer to the hostile elite, and so are in on it, have subordinated science to politics and so betrayed science, which is the model of knowing. That today's elite, in all of our social institutions, is deliberately shoving science under the iron paw of a political ideology that is, at its core, pre-modern, is far worse than when the Church silenced Galileo some 400 years ago.

In fact, the Church's action against Galileo was historically appropriate. Whereas what the elite is doing to the model of human knowing is not just insane and evil, but a maladaptation. In other words, the hostile elite is a threat to human survival. The hostile elite is the real cancer of the human race. Which means that treason against the hostile elite is loyalty to humanity.

I'll have more to say about the hostile elite in Part II. For now, I'd like to say that, for those who might dismiss as presumptuous, or even deluded, comments on matters such as these from someone like myself who has no academic credentials, just keep in mind that civilization was not created by academics. Or better yet, civilization was not created by professionals, whether in business, government, or academia. Not at all. Civilization was created by men who today we would call amateurs. In fact, by the 17th century the amateur-virtuoso was a well-established role in European culture. Darwin himself was not a professional scientist. He was an amateur naturalist in the English tradition. So, no, civilization was not created by professionals, but it is being destroyed by them. If one needs proof, just look around!

In any event, another important reason for wanting to share an inventory list is to make it clear that, as a recovering scapegoat, the content of Writings, and especially this essay, are written in blood.* Nothing of what I write is the result of academic toying. Not just because I'm no academic (my love for, and interest in, life is too great). But because, as with all scapegoats, my real aim is to tell my story, if only to myself, and in the best way I know how. For me, PRC Writings is the best way I know how.

*Of all that is written, I love only what a man has written with his own blood. Write with blood and you will find that blood is spirit. Nietzsche

It's worth pointing out that Nietzsche also said that academics could only rise to prominence during periods of civilizational decline. Witness today. In no way does this apply to the work of Morse Peckham. For the simple reason that he knew that an academic, or scholar, is a social role. So he played it ironically and transcended it early in his career. To this day his work represents the zenith in human thought. No one has come close.

Again, as with this essay's title, there is no grandiosity in my use of the Nietzsche quote. I have to write to keep from bleeding to death, ie; to heal.* I'm not saying that writing is the only way for a recovering scapegoat to keep themselves from bleeding to death. It's not even the only way for me. I'm just saying that it has proven, at least so far, to be the best way for me. Besides, whatever a recovering scapegoat does, they do in blood. A fact easily confirmed by recovering scpaegoats. Just ask them.

And if I almost didn't make it, then it's only fair to ask what saved me. What saved me was not just reading great books and writing (songs and essays), or creating my own job, but, more importantly, meeting the love of my life, and becoming part of an extraordinary family filled with beautiful children, and all in a place far from home that in time I made my home.That is what saved me. I made a niche for myself. So it only seemed fitting that at least some of all of that would find its own website or two.

And here we are. That's what saved me. But what motivated me?

What motivated me quite frankly was not just wanting to tell my story, it was also not wanting the scapegoaters to win. Meaning, I didn't want to lose myself before dying, which would have been worse than death. And I thought about suicide a lot and indeed, more than once, attempted to drink and drug myself to death, a not uncommon thing among scapegoats. But, even when sober, or especially when sober, I came to welcome the thought of suicide because the conclusion was always the same. You can not let them win - ever! Bluntly, scapegoaters are guily of attempted murder*, literally, or figuratively, as in soul murder. If the scapegoat does kill themselves, and this does happen, you can be sure their scapegoaters will be the ones ready with excuses, ready to absolve themselves of any responsibility. I was determined never to give them the satisfaction - and I never will.

*When the family scapegoat commits suicide, the scapegoating family should be put on trial for first-degree murder. Advocating for this would certainly direct attention to scapegoating for the crime against humanity that is so obviously is. That would be justice.

But, again, the deeper motivation for my recovery is not just about not wanting them to win, the deeper motiviation was then, and is now, not wanting to lose myself as a result of having been scapegoated. I wanted to live long enough to share my gifts with others, the gifts all scapegoats have. The very gifts that are often the reason why we were scapegoated in the first place.

Above all, I wanted to recover from the heartbreak of having been scapegoated. The life of a scapegoat is one protracted heartbreak - and heartbreak is the right word. I wanted to recover so as to one day become a part of something bigger than myself, bigger than my broken heart. The scapegoat's heart is broken not just because of having been scapegoated, but because they know in their bones that things can never again be right with people who have treated you like that. So, yes. I wanted to recover. And that's exactly what I'm doing now. So far, so good. But so what?

Well, anyone involved in any type of recovery, but especially the recovering scapegpoat, for, to repeat, that is our primary focus here, has had to enter into a never-ending process often described as brain rewiring, a kind of psychological and emotional repatterning, that seems to be the only way to recover from the #1 consequence of chronic scapegoat abuse - CPTSD.

If I thought the giant hand squeezing my heart and head pre-recovery was bad, it was in a strange way even more terrible and frightening in recovery. It seemed as if I was being forced by that hand to do something ridiculous and surreal, something fruitless and counterintuitive, like change the direction of a waterfall or a river. The early stages of recovery, first from addiction and then later from scapegoat abuse, were like living in some kind of strange and hostile underworld, a world both daunting and dangerous to which, like Sisyphus, I was condemned.

The one big difference here is that I was not being punished for my deceitfulness, but was being punished by those who had deceived me, especially my mother. Far from being punished for her deceit, she was the eternal punisher and I was the eternally punished. In fact, I would suggest that this inversion of the Sisyphus legend is just as accurate an analogy for the recovering scapegoat as is the scapegoat legend itself.* But the key word in the above is seemed. It seemed as if recovering was not only counter-productive, but pointless, even absurd. That is, until I completely broke down to breakthrough and finally breakaway.

This is not to imply that there was one magical breakdown-breakthrough-breakaway. Not at all. That's too Hollywood. Which is to say - unbelievable. In fact, the whole point of recovery, at least for me, is to recognize and accept this three-step process as an inevitable and indispensable part of growth. Like anything else, the more practice, the better the performance.

*An inverted myth, such as the one offered here, strikes me as an entirely appropriate response to the inverted reality that is scapegoating itself.

It is exactly this that serves as the justification for saying that the recovering scapegoat, along with the culturally transcending individual and recovering addict, represents the future model of human consciousness. And now we are back to our analogy at the beginning of this essay, the analogy between the family scapegoat and the global scapegoat, between familial and global scapegoating. The justification for this analogy can be seen in our current culture crisis, which has been brought about by the elite's Global Super Tyranny. A tyranny that is entirely scapegoat-dependent. Anyone who refuses to submit to that tyranny, anyone who wants to understand what has happened to them as a result of this crisis, anyone who wants to live in defiance of the scapegoater's rules, will, perforce, have to undergo that eternal process of brain rewiring, just like the family scapegoat.

Needless to say, such brain rewiring is the absolute opposite of brainwashing. The irony here is that both scapegoater and scapegoat are brainwashed. That is, until the scapegoat breaks down to break through and ulitmately breaks away from their scapegoaters, ie; breaks away long enough to enter recovery and stay there. At that point, it becomes a battle within minds (of the scapegoats) and between minds (scapegoats vs scapegoaters). In other words, a battle between brainwashing and brain rewiring. Make no mistake about it. This is a battle between life and death.

Naturally, the recovery is itself traumatizing. Which would explain why, sadly, some don't make it. The reason is not hard to find. Such recovery is, like the abuse, humilating and infuritating and triggers not a few revenge fanatasies that, though understandable, nevertheless often serve as an obstacle to one's recovery which, obviously, is what helps trigger those fanatisies.

This state of affairs is not only discouraging, it is often debiliating, and can destroy the recovering scapegoat. The challenge then is not to succumb to the despair brought about by recovery. The challenge is to not quit before the miracle.

We started our discussion by mentioning irony as it relates to PRC, this essay, and its title. So it only seems appropriate to close these Opening Remarks by returning to that theme. Because if anything deserves the epithet ironic it is the use of the word miracle above. Because the miracle is actually the result of the recovering scapegoat's attempt to satisfy the one thing that separates them, above everything else, from their scapegoaters...

The Drive Toward Reality! If the recovering scapegoat can somehow manage to survive their attempts to satisfy their drive toward reality the rewards are incalculable. The most important reward being a Self that one can live with and, more importantly, share with others. And, conveniently enough, that drive toward reality just happens to be the first item on our list. However, since everything on our list is of equal value, it will be presented in no particular order. So to that list, in Part II, we shall turn.