Liberalism and Victim Mentality

[Unome]

Liberalism and Gun Control:

Conservative: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

Liberals falsely believe that "guns kill people". Then liberals use this presumption leading to another conclusion. The liberal thinks in his/her mind, "if guns are outlawed then crime, murder, and homicide will disappear!" This is a false conclusion, caused by the false premise. Liberals generally ignore the fact that if/when firearms are outlawed or removed from a population then people resort to other means of murder/genocide. For example, humans used to fight wars using spears, swords, and arrows. Guns were not yet invented. But murder, war, and genocide were still practiced.

Liberals naively, ignorantly, foolishly, childishly believe in "fairness, equality, justice for all" and "the inherent goodness of humanity". Liberals (from Christian morality) believe that all humans are "born good" but "turn evil" according to "bad education, poor upbrgining, or social oppression (like whites-oppressing-blacks)". Liberals refuse the premise that people can be "born evil", or worse, "consciously choose to commit or become evil".

Therefore liberals absolutely reject the idea that "people kill people". Again as with the trend of liberalism, victim-status is the ultimate goal and ideal. Liberals want to be the "absolute victims of the universe". Because if they are life's biggest victims then they can "demand rights". It legitimizes and justifies the desire and battle for privilege, protection, security, luxury, wealth, etc.


If liberals were open-minded, which they're not, then they'd contemplate the idea that people are autonomous and self-responsible. If a man kills somebody else then it is the cause, fault, and action of the man. He is responsible for himself and his actions. Feminism presupposes that women are less responsible/moral/capable/powerful/autonomous than men. A woman is not responsible for herself. A child, less so. So the "privilege ladder" or hierarchy goes white-man, black-man, white-woman, black-woman, then "child". Children are least responsible for anything in life.

The process of aging, growing older, wiser, maturation, is therein an act of acquiring self-control, self-responsibility, morality, etc.


(This is the reason-why children should not play with guns, and respect/fear guns… because they don't have a mature sense of responsibility along with the preciousness of life & death. Children treat life & death as a "game", a video game, with little or no value.)

[Unome]

Child, Female, Black Privilege:

Humanity values privilege; because humanity values security. Security is opposite to Freedom. You cannot value both Security and Freedom at the same time. You have to choose. Will you live a life responsible for your mistakes, paying a heavy price, even with your life? Or will you put a safety-net beneath you, so when you fall you avoid pain and suffering? The safety-net leads to decadent and hedonistic societies, where a population begins to live in a fantasy world. It escapes reality and begins to believe that life is safe, humans are not animals, and humanity does not live with existential or predatory threats. People begin to live in an ideal world instead of the real world.

People assign privilege (security-value) to others. For example parents naturally privilege their infants and children, often times taking huge risks (representing freedom), altruism, and self-sacrifice for their children's lives. Mothers particularly do this by nature, instinct, and reflex.


Child privilege is obvious. The weakest people of humanity require the most demanding securities/privilege/rights/etc. Thus people automatically assume that children are worth more than others. The life of a child is deemed a higher value than the worth of an adult. But this fact becomes obfuscated when an adult risks his/her life for his/her own child, compared to the child of a stranger. Would you risk your own life for a stranger child? How about a strange child of an opposing ethnic/racial group, or in war, a group that wants to kill you? Do adults risk their lives for… starving Afrikans who die by the millions? Do adults risk their lives for poor children, or wealthy children? Ugly children or beautiful children? All of these questions actually have scientific studies and answers. Results are in. People favor/value more attractive (beautiful) children than otherwise, thus will take higher risks to save a beautiful child instead of an ugly one…

Would you risk your life, 80% chance of death, to save the life of a child of an opposing faction in war, a group that openly advocates and murders your ethnic/racial group??? (Almost all will say no, thus, altruism has limits…)


Female privilege is less obvious in infants and children, but becomes exponential and most obvious through maturation. Males assign value/privilege/security to females, almost always, for sexual reasons, sexual attraction, and ultimately sexual reproduction. Females are the ones who actually make the subconscious effort to birth and raise children. If a woman authentically did not want her child then there are many means she can (and women do) terminate the birth or even the child when its older. Science has recorded many child-mortality rates at the hands of mothers, including abortion. For example, a woman is raped and pregnant. Does she keep the child? She ultimately chooses yes or no, and demonstrates the level of her violation. It must be one of the most difficult actions to birth and raise the child of somebody you hate. Yet nature sometimes overrules female emotion, instinct is triggered, and a mother will raise a bastard.

If females had no sexual value, based on sexual attraction to men, then "female privilege" would dissipate. I hypothesize that sexual attraction is the foundation and basis for female (woman) privilege. No sexual attraction = no privilege offered. Thus men will treat ugly women as "equals" to men. Because no man wants to fuck a very ugly woman.


Black privilege seems oxymoronic and contradictory, given all the talk about "white privilege". But it actually is black people and non-whites who are privileged, and I'll tell you the reason why, the cause. When a group is deemed "inferior" or "less than" another then pity and altruism generally are assigned to it. Such is the case with blacks around the world. It surely is disrespectful to presume that somebody automatically is (born) to an inferior status. But this also happens with "second-class citizen" immigration groups. So it is not just blacks who are privileged. For example, a group is forced out of their homeland, otherwise face extinction/genocide. Another country takes them in as refuges, but treats them like shit. Is being treated like shit better than extinction??? Many people disagree, and prefer death over an oppressed/enslaved existence.

The privilege of low-strata social groups is based on pity. If a group is pitiful then mercy is applied in general. Such is the case when it comes to "white vs non-white". Whites are presumed (perhaps falsely as are many cases of privilege and value) self-capable, self-responsible, and morally accountable. This idea leads to the "White Man's Burden" ideology. White people are then subconsciously expected to grant mercy to those "less fortunate".

Less fortunate, meaning, more privileged not less…

Because responsibility is not privileged, as I've outlined from the beginning of this thread. Responsibility is direct evidence and indication that you are not privileged, but instead, are free, self-capable, truly autonomous, and endure great risks, trials, and tribulations of life.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Some people use imaginary victimhood for political gain, but I don't believe for one minute this is their genuine belief. They are simply opportunists. It's no different than any other attack-oriented politics. What they are really doing is attacking, not defending.

[Unome]

Some people use imaginary victimhood for political gain, but I don't believe for one minute this is their genuine belief. They are simply opportunists. It's no different than any other attack-oriented politics. What they are really doing is attacking, not defending.

Democracy in particular is horrible at "victim politicking". Because people assign privileges/securities to whole groups, based on popularity, which comes-and-goes.

Thus a liberal democracy becomes decadent and hedonistic. People fight to vote on privileges for their group and their group only, not for the whole.

[Darth Revan]

Democracy in particular is horrible at "victim politicking". Because people assign privileges/securities to whole groups, based on popularity, which comes-and-goes.

Thus a liberal democracy becomes decadent and hedonistic. People fight to vote on privileges for their group and their group only, not for the whole.

What you're referring to is a Republic. It is important to remember that while both democracy and Republic are deeply intertwined, they are not necessarily the same.

Democracy simply stands for the atomization of power, without any specification regarding how it will be organized. From the minuscule tribe to the city assembly, it all fits that description.

The Republic is a more elaborate system, and while one can argue it stands in theory for one thing or the other, I only concern myself with what it has come to represent factually. The Republic is then, the system that allows particular semi-ambitious interests to capture a portion of power, leaving the rest of it to very similar entities that are virtually undistinguishable except for miscellanous differences.

In turn, the Republic builds artificial societal categories, that are then absorbed by the lower majority and end up deciding a priori, how they will behave politically and how they will use their supposed power through elections.

I made this explanation to address a point you made:

People assign privileges/securities to whole groups, based on popularity, which comes-and-goes.

You seem to imply that is random, while every social interest group must at the very least have the sponsoring of one power group, it's not random or unexpected. Public 'struggles' only become widespread and popular once they have been pre-conceived by the minority, and fed to the lower majority.

All urban subcultures, popular icons, privileged consumption products and the crowd of people that follow them, simply reflect a design pattern.

Thus a liberal democracy becomes decadent and hedonistic. People fight to vote on privileges for their group and their group only, not for the whole.

Correct. But once again, this is more accurately, the doing of the Republic, rather than the abstract semi-mystical idea of democracy.
It is necessary to remember that those that lead a Republic, arrived and thrive in that position, precisely because of the specific combination of vices and virtues they have: They are ambitious, but not enough to covet all power (and thus can split it with other oligarchs); they are capable of scheming, but are never capable of creating a grand narrative for the long term; they are efficient in extracting material benefit, but are uncapable of building something lasting from their advantages.

You are then facing a system that, in order to grant the highest degree of satisfaction to its owners, must necessarily diffuse tension through pettiness and superficial conflicts. Having the lower majority argue and turn on each other for the most pitiful reasons, ensures that the leading minority never has to face a more troublesome rebellion, while creating enough diversions to hide their natural tendency to appropriate more and more wealth and comfort, even if eventually goes against the very same Republic laws, that are otherwise enforced over the lower majority.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Democracy in particular is horrible at "victim politicking". Because people assign privileges/securities to whole groups, based on popularity, which comes-and-goes.

Thus a liberal democracy becomes decadent and hedonistic. People fight to vote on privileges for their group and their group only, not for the whole.

Democracy and multicult don't go together even slightly. You will just get some groups taking advantage of everyone else at every turn.

[Unome]

What you're referring to is a Republic. It is important to remember that while both democracy and Republic are deeply intertwined, they are not necessarily the same.

A Republik is the primary Platonic politickal ideology that presupposes the basic ideal of a society. Individuals have needs which correspond to others, particularly including the sexual nature between men & women. As such, individuals form groups of cooperation, according to hierarchies, to fulfill a wide range of living functions that could not otherwise occur without specialization and delineating tasks throughout a large population. Such societies tend to form and reform; the ongoing re-formation represents the re-peating nature of Republikan theory.

Each generation of children, birth and death cycles, ushers in new (re)forms of the preexisting society, hierarchy, and population dynamic.

[Unome]

Democracy and multicult don't go together even slightly. You will just get some groups taking advantage of everyone else at every turn.

Perhaps the biggest flaw of Democracy of all is the reallocation of monopolized, concentrated wealth & power, out of the hands of a ruling minority or prestigious ethnic group (aristocracy), to rapid-breeding R-selection members of the lowest end of social strata, the poorest, the depraved, the ugliest types of people.

The result of this potentially fatal flaw is a "Welfare" system that eventually bloats government spending. The poor, rapidly populating segment of the nation keep voting themselves more & more money.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ~Benjamin Franklin

[Unome]

Liberal Inability to Identify Social Causes:

"People do not kill people; guns kill people." ~Liberal Thoughts

Since liberalism is a child-ideology, liberals are inept at observing, speculating, and assigning causation to human behaviors, especially including criminal behaviors. Not only do Liberals automatically believe in ideas such as Human Equality and Human Rights… but they also believe in a type of Universal Human Goodness as well. To liberals, nobody is "born a criminal". Because to be "born anything", requires liberation. Remember that liberals want to "free themselves from nature". So the most extreme liberal will advocate and defend Blank Slate Theory. Everybody is born without instinct, without reflexes, without preset anything.

Everything is "changeable" to extreme liberals. Everything is open to "reeducation". And if people are born with innate qualities then liberals tend to deny this. For example, a white child is born with white skin, a black child is born with black skin. The liberal will not admit this, but instead respond "Race is a social construct". Or worse, "Color is a social construct". Or insane lengths of liberalism, "Sight is a social construct". This "X is a social construct" is the liberal's infamous "Ace in the Hole" argumentative retort.

If the liberal is forced to deal with an innate trait, behavior, or quality (such as being born with black, brown, green, or blue eyes) then the liberal will attempt to redefine that trait as "a social construct".

But is height, a social construct? Is race and skin color? Eye and hair color? How a person smells? Allergic reactions?

[Darth Revan]

A Republik is the primary Platonic politickal ideology that presupposes the basic ideal of a society. Individuals have needs which correspond to others, particularly including the sexual nature between men & women. As such, individuals form groups of cooperation, according to hierarchies, to fulfill a wide range of living functions that could not otherwise occur without specialization and delineating tasks throughout a large population. Such societies tend to form and reform; the ongoing re-formation represents the re-peating nature of Republikan theory.

Each generation of children, birth and death cycles, ushers in new (re)forms of the preexisting society, hierarchy, and population dynamic.

I had specifically said I'm not referring to that:

"The Republic is a more elaborate system, and while one can argue it stands in theory for one thing or the other, I only concern myself with what it has come to represent factually."