Karma, as a universal principle of cause and effect, posits that every action—whether physical, mental, or emotional—generates a corresponding consequence that inevitably returns to the individual, shaping their present and future experiences. This metaphysical law operates impartially across all beings and contexts, transcending time and space to ensure a balanced return of energy based on the intent and nature of one’s deeds, a concept recognized in one way or another across all religious traditions, from Hinduism’s cycle of samsara to Christianity’s notion of reaping what one sows.
Karmic debt refers to the accumulated consequences of one’s actions that must be balanced through future experiences and/or through gaining self-aware insights that changes what one ’causes” at a fundamental internal level of being, arising from the universal principle of cause and effect where harmful deeds create a moral obligation to be repaid. Sin as debt, as reflected in the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”), similarly frames moral transgressions as a spiritual liability that requires atonement or forgiveness, linking personal accountability to a transactional ledger of divine justice.
Mob mentality, where individuals surrender autonomy to a collective driven by emotion rather than reason, creates a deceptive façade of moral rightness through sheer force. Historical examples, such as the crucifixion of Jesus—known in esoteric circles as the “crucifixion of reason”—and literary archetypes like the torch-wielding villagers chasing Frankenstein’s monster, reveal how mobs target those who disrupt their fragile unity. Participants believe they can escape accountability by dissolving into the group’s anonymity, but the metaphysical law of cause and effect—karma—asserts that each individual remains responsible. This law, akin to a transactional ledger of moral failings, ensures that actions within a mob accrue a karmic debt, a debt like sin that the universe balances with unerring precision, transcending human attempts to evade consequence.
Shame is an emotional state where an individual internalizes a sense of fundamental flaw or unworthiness, often expressed as “I am wrong” in the core of their being. It differs from guilt by targeting the self rather than a specific action, encompassing a pervasive feeling of disgrace or inadequacy.
Shadow projection is the psychological act of attributing one’s own unacknowledged flaws, fears, or undesirable traits onto another person, often to avoid confronting them within oneself.
Scapegoating is the practice of blaming an individual or group for problems or faults they did not cause, using them as a target to displace responsibility or guilt.
The mob’s power lies in its ability to suppress individual reasoning, fostering a collective identity that obscures personal agency and moral responsibility. Ayn Rand’s profound observation, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities,” underscores the sanctity of individual sovereignty, which mobs systematically erode through conformity. Individuals are drawn to mobs not merely by fear and insecurity but by a deeper need to avoid toxic shame, often rooted in unresolved trauma. This shame, as explored in psychological frameworks, drives them to project their inner pain onto scapegoats, seeking superficial relief in the group’s shared narrative. By externalizing their wounds, they cling to the mob’s illusion of moral certainty, sacrificing reason for the comfort of collective absolution.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivist morality holds that the pursuit of rational self-interest, grounded in objective reality, is the foundation of ethical behavior, emphasizing individual reason as the moral guide. It relies on abductive reasoning to infer principles from observed facts, integrating evidence and context to form conclusions that align with truth and personal flourishing.
A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest – but if devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking. ~Ayn Rand
Reason is not merely an intellectual tool but a moral imperative, as Ayn Rand eloquently stated: “A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest – but if devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” To abandon reason in a mob is to reject the painful but necessary pursuit of truth, a choice that reflects a moral failing. This evasion, driven by the desire to avoid the discomfort of self-reflection and the shame it might unearth, aligns with psychological insights that trauma keeps individuals superficial, treating pain as an enemy rather than a teacher, thus perpetuating cycles of irrational collective behavior.
The fragility of the mob’s collective identity emerges from a complex interplay of fear, insecurity, and shame avoidance, as individuals seek refuge in numbers to shield themselves from personal reckoning. Ludwig von Mises asserted, “Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts,” highlighting that mobs are not entities but aggregates of individual choices to forsake reason. These choices often stem from protecting a cornerstone belief—a psychological anchor so vital that its challenge threatens existential crisis. Trauma-induced shame amplifies this dynamic, leading individuals to project their pain onto external targets, a process of scapegoating that mistakes personal wounds for universal truth. This shadow projection, as psychological theory suggests, binds the mob together, as each member’s surrender of reason reinforces a shared narrative that deflects inner turmoil.
Historical examples vividly illustrate this dynamic, revealing the destructive power of mobs driven by shame and scapegoating. The crucifixion of Jesus, orchestrated by a mob incited by religious and political authorities, targeted a figure whose teachings exposed societal hypocrisies, making him a scapegoat for collective shame and fear of change. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the mob’s pursuit of the “monster” projected communal anxieties and unresolved pain onto an outsider, transforming a misunderstood being into a symbol of collective dread. These instances demonstrate how mobs amplify individual tendencies to externalize shame, channeling personal trauma into collective violence. Each participant’s act, whether a shout or a thrown stone, reflects a personal failure to confront inner wounds, perpetuating a cycle of harm that binds the group in shared denial.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s obedience study offer empirical depth to this analysis, exposing how collective contexts erode individual moral agency. In Philip Zimbardo’s 1971 experiment, students assigned as guards adopted abusive roles, their behavior shaped by situational power and a subconscious need to deflect personal insecurities and shame onto prisoners, who became scapegoats for their discomfort. Stanley Milgram’s 1961 study revealed that 65% of participants obeyed authority to administer fake lethal shocks, suppressing moral qualms to align with hierarchical expectations, possibly to avoid the shame of nonconformity. These experiments underscore how collective or authoritative frameworks enable individuals to project their inner conflicts, yet each decision to conform or harm remains a personal moral lapse, rooted in the refusal to engage reason as a guide through shame and pain.
The Nuremberg trials post-World War II provide a historical anchor for this metaphysical perspective, demonstrating that individual accountability persists within even the most structured collectives. The rejection of the “just following orders” defense established that no one could hide behind collective action to escape responsibility for atrocities. As Harper Lee poignantly noted, “A mob is a place where people go to get away from their conscience.” The trials laid bare the futility of seeking moral absolution through group dynamics, as each Nazi official’s role—whether active or complicit—was judged as a personal failing. This resonates with the psychological insight that shame, when unaddressed, drives individuals to externalize blame, yet the universal law of cause and effect ensures that such actions carry inevitable consequences, regardless of collective justification.
Transactional Love is a conditional exchange where affection or care is offered with the expectation of receiving something in return, such as validation or reciprocation. It operates like a contract, driven by external motives and often tied to a sense of obligation or debt.
Non-Transactional Love is given freely without expecting repayment, rooted in genuine care and intrinsic motivation. It prioritizes authentic connection and truth, unbound by calculations or external rewards.
The word “transaction” originates from the Latin “transactio,” meaning “an agreement” or “completion,” derived from “trans-” (across) and “agere” (to act or do). It refers to an act of carrying out or settling an exchange between parties, often implying mutual action or performance.
The Biblical maxim “live by the sword, die by the sword”, another “reap what you sow” verse that implies the existence of the karmic concept of cause and effect as a universal metaphysical principle, extends to moral frameworks and worldviews: “live by transactional love, die by transactional love; live by non-transactional love, die by non-transactional love.” Those who operate transactionally, viewing actions as entries in a moral ledger, accrue karmic debt when harming others, bound by a debt-based framework that amplifies shame and blame. Conversely, individuals embracing non-transactional love act in alignment with their own self-interests while also valuing the needs of the “other,” inherently avoiding harm by adhering to the golden rule. By rejecting the ledger-based premise and grounding their actions in reason and truth, they transcend the superficiality of shame-driven projection, behaving more objectively moral and sidestepping the consequences of transactional systems.
This aligns with the idea that confronting pain as a teacher, rather than as an enemy, fosters authentic moral agency because it encourages individuals to engage in self-reflection and personal growth, allowing them to integrate their experiences into a coherent sense of self that prioritizes reason and truth over avoidance; this approach is relevant to non-transactional love, as it enables individuals to form relationships based on mutual respect and rational self-interest, free from the conditional exchanges that perpetuate transactional love’s cycle of debt and shame. By embracing pain as a source of insight, individuals develop the resilience and clarity needed to make independent, principled decisions, free from the distortions of shame or external pressures, thereby cultivating a genuine and self-directed moral compass that supports the sustainable, interest-aligned nature of non-transactional love.
Karma, as the law of cause and effect, transcends legal frameworks, operating on a universal and metaphysical level that legal systems cannot match. Legal systems often struggle to assign individual liability in mob actions, as seen in the 17th-century witch trials, such as those in Salem, where collective hysteria and accusations of witchcraft shielded accusers from prosecution. Yet, as Swami Vivekananda stated, “Every action generates a force of energy that returns to us in like kind,” like the Bible’s “live by the sword, die by the sword” above, suggests a cosmic tally that holds each mob participant individually accountable, regardless of earthly justice. This metaphysical perspective views every choice as a seed planted in the individual’s moral field, ensuring consequences that extend beyond human jurisdictions, a principle that resonates with traditions from the Bhagavad Gita to Emerson’s essays on compensation, as well as the Bible.
The mob’s collective identity, rooted in prejudice and amplified by shame, magnifies individual failings into collective harm. Paul McAuley observed, “Mobs were ugly and vicious but they were also purposeful, congregating around a wound in the populace’s psyche.” This wound often stems from personal shame projected onto scapegoats, as individuals externalize their pain to avoid confronting it. Ayn Rand’s further insight, “The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain… The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone,” reveals that abandoning reason in a mob is a personal choice, often driven by the need to evade the pain of self-awareness. This choice, rooted in trauma’s superficial hold, binds individuals to the mob’s destructive narrative, perpetuating cycles of blame and violence.
The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred. ~Ayn Rand, “The Soul of an Individualist,” For the New Intellectual
Modern examples, such as the witch trials and online cancel culture, underscore the persistence of these dynamics. In the 17th century, European and Salem witch trials scapegoated alleged witches to deflect communal shame and fear, each accusation a personal act of harm masked by collective fervor. Online mobs, cloaked in righteous indignation, target individuals to project personal insecurities and unresolved pain, each tweet or post a personal act of harm masked by collective fervor. George Eliot’s words, “All things except reason and order are possible with a mob,” capture the chaos driven by emotional projection, where shame-fueled scapegoating overrides the pursuit of truth, perpetuating harm across generations.
Deductive rigidity refers to the strict application of fixed premises to reach conclusions, often stifling inquiry by treating those premises as unchallengeable, leading to inflexible and potentially flawed outcomes. In contrast, abductive reasoning offers flexibility by inferring the best explanation from observed facts, adapting to new evidence and context to align with truth.
Governments, like mobs, often function as collectives that derive moral legitimacy through coercion rather than reason. As explored in my recent article The Illusion of Moral Authority, governments rely on a monopoly on force, enforcing compliance through power rather than earning trust through consent and objective morality, reason, and truth. This deductive rigidity, evident in deductive processes like fiat laws and unchallenged protocols, mirrors mob dynamics by stifling critical inquiry and projecting societal shame onto designated enemies. Individuals who enforce or comply without scrutiny, driven by the same shame avoidance that fuels mobs, contribute to a cycle of harm, their blind adherence reflecting a moral lapse. This systemic scapegoating, rooted in trauma’s superficial hold over each individual, perpetuates injustice, as governments externalize pain through their fiat driven procedures and statutes rather than addressing its root causes.
In conclusion, mobs and coercive collectives like governments offer a false refuge from accountability, but the law of cause and effect ensures individual responsibility endures. From the crucifixion of Jesus to modern digital frenzies, history reveals that surrendering reason—often to avoid shame through scapegoating—incurs a profound moral cost. Ayn Rand’s emphasis on reason as a moral act, reinforced by the Nuremberg trials’ rejection of collective excuses, affirms that no one escapes their role in causing harm to others, even when done under a collective banner. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s insight, “The history of persecution is a history of endeavors to cheat nature,” captures the futility of evading karmic consequences, as the universe ensures that each individual’s actions, however obscured by the mob’s shame-driven narrative, meet their just reckoning.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
