Liberalism and Victim Mentality

[Unome]

To be a victim is to be privileged because,
To be privileged is to not be responsible for yourself.

Instead somebody else (a parent, guardian, stronger person, etc.) is responsible for you.
Isn't it obvious that liberalism/victim-mentality is sign of immaturity, childishness, and weakness?


To be a victim is to admit that you are a weakling, morally void, and cannot survive as an individual…

Furthermore, liberalism (victim-mentality) appeals to the weakest element of humanity. Liberals fight over rights, meaning "privilege", meaning protection. Liberalism is an ideology of child favoritism. Children fight to be daddy or mommy's "favorite", and therefore most protected and safest child. But this safety is an illusion, since it is not earned of a person's own accord, but through a higher power (the parent).

This can also be analogized to religion, and appealing to god, being "god's favorite".

Discuss.

[Unome]

Feminism and Liberalism:

Feminism and Liberalism are a match made in heaven; because females tend to be allergic to self-responsibility, morals, and autonomy. Why? Because being irresponsible for yourself, having a guardian or parent take care of you (forever), is evidence for privilege, not freedom. Privilege = Security. A child is privileged and secure, watched over by a guardian (parent). Freedom is an adult attribute. Freedom implies that a child becomes an adult, a dependent becomes individual, and somebody amoral becomes moral and ethical. Becoming an independent, moral, adult, is not for everybody though. In fact I personally claim it as a very small minority (top 0.1% of humanity). Because life is easier remaining a child, and cared for, forever.

Too much privilege, being spoiled, leads to decadence, moral decay, and a hedonistic society. Feminism and Liberalism both promote a hedonistic society. Liberalism is about personal irresponsibility, and disallowing children to become adults. Feminism fights for female privilege (security), and therefore does not "help women" as many feminists claim. Because if feminists really wanted to "help women" then they would quit treating women like children, and start treating women like adults. What is the difference between an adult and a child? The child is incapable, or simply doesn't want to, take responsibility for his/her own life.

Feminism and Liberalism both revolve around "Victim Mentality" and see it as morally wrong, and evil, to "blame the victim". But this creates an immunity for the supposedly innocent "victim". Nobody respects victims. Because victims are the types of people who are subjugated by events in life, and never master anything in life. Mastery implies self-control, morality, ethics, laws, codes, order. It implies responsibility. If you are raped, then yes, it is your fault and not the aggressor. If somebody steals your money, or kills your parents, then yes it is your fault and not the aggressor. Because you are responsible for your life, first, nobody else. You are responsible for yourself, and perhaps, other people.

An adult, and a parent, ought to be responsible for others. But this only can happen after a person is responsible for him/herself.

Feminism, but liberalism in particular, keeps girls as "eternally girlish and childish". It disallows girls to mature up to a certain level of integrity, pride (prudishness), poise, dignity, class. Instead these are bad, negative ideologies (according to my argument). A person should become more conservative. There should be a form of "Conservative Feminism" that refuses to paint women as eternal victims, and start painting women as responsible for themselves.

However I maybe making a great mistake.

Maybe I'm asking far, far too much from people… maybe my expectations are just too high.

[Unome]

#1 Victim:

Liberalism is a fight to be the "world's biggest victim". Because the more of a victim you are, the more privilege, security, and favoritism you deserve. And liberals feel entitled (deserving) of such privilege/protection, just for being born. Thus liberals will experience a paradox when it comes to race/gender social issues. On one hand liberals deny race/gender exists (everything is a "social construct"), but on the other hand, want to promote the victimization of one race against another, or one gender against another. Blacks are victims of whites. Females are victims of males. This latter premise validates feminism to feminists, and racism to blacks. "Only white people can be racist", which obviously is false, when applied around the world.

Judaism also makes an entrance to liberal-politicks on these points. Judaism explicitly admits to fighting for "#1 Favorite Child of God". In this way Judaism is the highest and most potent form of liberalism in human history. Judaism is the end result of liberal ideology and policies. Even the most conservative Jew, is still liberal on a core level, according to theistic faith. The more conservative Jews will side-step this issue by claiming atheism or renouncing the Abrahamic God, often causing fracturing loyalties in the jewish community.

Although as I've been thinking recently (over the past week), Christians represent the majority of liberals based on population and number. The very idea of "human rights" (human protection/privilege/security/entitlement) implies that …merely being born human deserves automatic protection and security. But by whom? By what right and justification? Who grants rights? Christians necessarily purport that God grants and fulfills rights. But secularists (either Christian or Jewish) both support Statist governments based on the principle of human rights. "If god doesn't exist, then it must be the duty of government, or a democracy, to instill and entrust rights (protections) to all men". And "All men are created equal (before god)". So secularism and statism are liberal policies, when it comes to human rights.

Most of these ideologies firmly take root in ancient history, philosophy, and human evolution. Civilization has evolved these ideas and developed them over time, resulting in a stronger reaffirmation of their basic beliefs and justifications.

Because people find the idea, the possibility of "Rights" too enticing to ignore. Wouldn't it be the absolute best thing in life, to be born "Privileged", to born beautiful, wealthy, healthy, strong? Isn't that idea so alluring and promising? It is, because people instinctively manipulate natural environments to favor themselves, which in turn favors and aids the survival of their progeny. It is human nature for both men & women to cooperate in this way, which is not true only for humans, but every other organic specie as well. As such, rights/entitlements/protection/security are all natural rewards of successful natural selection.

Liberalism is an organic process. Because it is natural to want, demand, and even compete for… privilege/protection/security. If not for yourself, then for other people of your choosing…

[Unome]

Conservative is the opposite of Liberal, so then…
Perpetrator is the opposite of Victim.

You either cause events to occur and things to happen, or…
You are an eternal victim of uncaused events and the "random", chaotic universe.

[Methmatician]

It seems like conservatives are always complaining about being persecuted for their beliefs.

[Unome]

It seems like conservatives are always complaining about being persecuted for their beliefs.

Examples?

[Methmatician]

Examples?

This thread.

[Unome]

Continue derailing my thread… I want to hear more.

[Unome]

United States Liberalism:

Most in the US have some small degree of liberalitis (liberal mental disorder). For example most Amerikans disagree with slavery and the idea of owning people. People are subjects, not objects. And the idea of "Universal Human Rights" exist to prevent human slavery. No person ought to be a slave.

But this liberal absolution leads to many errors. Don't parents own their own children? Who owns a child? Is the guardian with custody of a child, also the owner of that child? How can a person technically be owned? Do you own your own DNA? Can a corporation copyright your DNA without your permission? Can a corporation clone you without your permission? Do you own yourself? How can you? What is ownership? Why do people believe they can lay claim over others, this or that type of thing? Objects can be owned, so why not subjects?

There are many questions to answer…


Another popular example of human ownership is sex-slave and trafficking of young girls to be raped and pimped out. In many countries and places around the world, young teenage girls (12-15) are kidnapped, raped, drugged, and then prostituted. These are "sex slaves". However this is a bigger problem in second and third world (poor) countries. It is less relevant in the first world. In fact in the US some girls/women actively "Choose" to become prostitutes. So if a female chooses to become a prostitute then isn't it her "choice" or "right" to do so?

Here is the paradox: Can a person choose to become a slave?

Because to choose, signals freedom. And to be a slave, is to give up choice.

[StonyArabia]

Liberalism is what created progress, conservatism only creates backwardness and society stuck in time.