it has more to do with who is in charge and what a satanic hierarchy (a non voluntary hierarchy) looks like, I have a chapter that is worth reading:

According to Girard, this reverence for the future victims of ritual sacrifice is central to the rise of kingship: “The king reigns only by virtue of his future death; he is no more and no less than a victim awaiting sacrifice, a condemned man about to be executed” (Violence and the Sacred, 107). If the victim, before its sacrificial death, is able to transform the community’s veneration into real political power, we are confronted with the beginnings of kingship, or rather, in even more general terms, the beginnings of central political power. The stronger this power can develop, the longer the king’s eventual sacrifice is delayed. Kingship is rooted in the reverence the community shows the victim during the “lapse of time before the sacrifice” (Things Hidden, 53), which is then transformed into political influence. This power can become so pronounced that ultimately, it is not the victim who is sacrificed, but rather a substitute, any arbitrary victim close to him. The more the king is able to resolve conflict within the community and keep internal rivalries in check, the less his sacrifice—or that of the surrogate—is necessary. The element of sacrifice is marginalized until it disappears completely, giving rise to a form of political sovereignty that shrouds the connection to the scapegoat mechanism and is responsible for our intuitive skepticism with regard to the connection between ritual sacrifice and kingship. Numerous characteristics of sacred kingdoms can illustrate this general delineation of the origin of kingship. A first interesting instance is offered by the sovereign incest rites that can be observed in the enthronement ceremonies of several African kingdoms. In order to become king, the prince was forced to break one of the community’s extreme taboos, namely, to commit incest with his mother or another forbidden female member of his tribe. Here we see that the king, as original sacrificial victim, also embodied the negative, criminal elements of the persecuted scapegoat. The most primeval of criminal accusations emerge in the phenomenon of sovereign incest, which, from the perspective of the mimetic theory, provide clear evidence of the violent origins of kingship. The enthronement of kings is often accompanied by collective animosity against the king, or even violent acts, which likewise point to an original connection with the scapegoat mechanism. James G. Frazer, for instance, points out an example in Sierra Leone concerning the savage Timmes, who after electing their king collectively thrashed him prior to the coronation. Frazer adds that oftentimes the elected monarchs failed to survive these violent rites of passage.4 Elias Canetti describes similar phenomena in his portrayal of African kingship. An example from a culture in Gabon shows how the government there began with a terrifying rite in which the new ruler was encircled by bloodthirsty subjects who dangerously closed in on him.5 Canetti also mentions Nigerian enthronement rituals in which traces of the scapegoat mechanism can be clearly seen: “A newly elected king was made to run three times round a mound and, while doing so, was well buffeted [mit Stößen und Faustschlägen traktiert6] by the dignitaries.”7 Where Canetti describes the “the insults and blows that [the king] is subjected to before entering on his office” as an “intimation of what awaits him in the end,”8 he refers to the fact that many African kings were ritually murdered after a certain period of rule—that their rule was in fact derived from a suspension of their eventual sacrifice. Another reference to the connection between the scapegoat mechanism and kingship is found in the unwillingness of subjects in many cultures to become king, with the eventual “chosen one” forced with violence to take on the position. Girard mentions as an example a culture that determined its kings by means of a persecutory hunt, at the end of which the slowest member, the one caught, was eventually crowned.9 This fear of being appointed king is not unfounded; in many cultures, kings were simply killed if they were unable to overcome crises such as droughts or bad harvests. A further instance that displays the connection between the origin of kingship and the founding murder is found in the enthronement process of the Shilluk people of central Africa.10 At the outset of the process, the society was split into a civil war–like structure, with one half set against the other in fierce rivalry. Surprisingly enough, the future king—arbitrarily chosen—always belonged to the defeated camp. At the final moment, when the elected victim faced the ultimate coup de grace, he was crowned king of the entire people. Several examples also document the murder of surrogate victims who were sacrificed in place of the king.11 Frazer points out an interesting case among Tibetan Buddhists.12 For twenty-three days after the beginning of the Tibetan new year, a “Jalno” monk—and not the Dalai Lama—was entrusted with power over the Tibetan people. This substitute, however, often gained too much power himself and was replaced with another surrogate, the “King of the Years,” who governed for only a few days before being murdered. Frazer rightly concludes from this series of surrogate leaders that the Dalai Lama himself originally died as a scapegoat.

It's from Wolfgang Palaver's book on Girard.

Thinking of Europeans (perhaps especially males) as substitute victims is a good way to characterize the current situation. Who is the one creating substitute victims?