Alternative perspective suffers from two major obstacles: practitioners and investors. The practitioner is an obstacle without fault (though no less problematic for it). The practitioner is merely entrenched in his understanding and has often lost the cognitive capacity of observation to penetrate his own sphere of concept. Further, he is often victimized into playing the pawn for the second obstacle, the investor. The scientist wants to know what the truth is, and often comes to realize that such is dependent, often changing, and ever moving … so he chases. The practitioner wants to know what to do, and often becomes very good at doing what seemed right at a certain point in time, and so he sits and hardens. The investor wants to be seen as right, he wants to be credited and subsequently paid. He cares not for actual truth, so long as those he exploits remain amenable to preserving the flow of resource in his direction. This malice often corrupts the former two groups; the practitioner becomes a fortification for the investor to hide behind, and the “scientist” more interested in fame than discovery becomes a socially credible (though truthfully fallacious) mouthpiece with which to shape the social terrain. In this the investor devises his defenses as well as his weapons, and his enemy is the public. So he divides, and he conquers.
The practice of excessive attribution is by far one of the most damaging things we do the the social intellect. Not only does it allow us to assert credit for our “own ideas” even though not one thing you have ever thought wasn’t either a direct reflection or an amalgamation of concepts that WE HAVE RECEIVED from our experiences; which by itself isn’t problematic except when taken to an extreme where we refuse to share the credit with anything or anyone at all. The same malpractice is seen in execution and exemplified by many “rights”-focused capitalists’ assertion that their success is solely attributed to themselves and in no way reflective of the nation of people whose collective efforts created the operations space (in the form of towns), simplified means of verbal and physical communications (in the form of roads and post), or sometimes even his own employees, without which the capitalist’s business plan would have been far less profitable, or viable. The twin poison of this trend is to blame everything on something or somebody instead of assessing the situation and working a solution… again, honesty is the victim as profit becomes the center of gravity which people choose to defend. (Here I’d delineate that honesty may differ from truth in actual form, but not in humble character… we cannot “tell the truth” because nobody can possess the absolute truth (see FATE), but we do honor to the truth by wanting to know it without abandoning it in favor of a personal preference upon discovery of adverse reality.) Yet the war of blame is but a smokescreen to keep the battlefield confused and without the coherent unity that is required to stage an effective resistance to the hailstorm of garbage foisted upon the citizenry by profit-hungry capitalist extremists. Industry is not rightfully to blame for creating something that people have a choice to adopt or not. However, when industry is paired with unchecked misinformation, fear, and access and attention shaping campaigns the social environment turns from a potential-fertile field of possibility for a “free” citizenry into a shaped, exploited, socially toxic stew of victims in which the most unscrupulous capitalist bathes with impunity. The notion of “let the buyer beware” is not inherently unjust, the leaf cannot be blamed for being defensively poisonous; but when contact with said leaf is forced, and recourse is eliminated (such as the inability to sue an industry when the consumption of its products become effectively involuntary) the situation becomes inherently predatory … what is sold as a playground becomes a meat processing facility.