Liberalism and Victim Mentality

[Unome]

Liberalism and Freedom:

The Liberal contradiction exists between the opposing values of security & freedom.

Because a person cannot value both security & freedom at the same time. You must choose and in so choosing, expose yourself as more conservative (valuing security) or more liberal (valuing freedom). Liberals resist and defy any notion of 'Nature' including innate biological qualities. Any obvious natural trait, such as inborn qualities of skin color, hair color, eye color, body shape, etc. tend to become denied by extreme liberals as "a social construct". When a liberal claims any human phenomenon as "a social construct", you can rest-assured that it is in fact not a social construct at all, but just the opposite. It is natural and resists change.

The very idea of humanity and anthropology presupposes a 'Human' category, a specific body shape that readily is observed and obvious to all, the human body shape. To be human, is to constitute and embody that innate, inborn, natural trait. Thus constitutes "Human Nature".

Liberals struggle against nature, and when defeated ("X …is a social construct"), instead prefer to redefine nature when & where liberals see fit.


Liberals have already gone to great lengths, over centuries of philosophers, eras, societies, cultures, etc. to redefine human nature.

Many have claimed that human nature is… intrinsically good, intrinsically evil, human equality, human rights, etc.

These ought not be seen as actual qualities that people are born with, but instead, a reaction to other real qualities that people are born with. For example, imagine a child is born "healthier" than another, or to rich parents. It's not fair. And humans are born unequal. Thus the idea that humans are "born equal", before The Creator, is a reaction to the actual.

What actually exists, is inequality. And liberalism reinforces the idea of "human equality" as a solution to the premise.

Liberals eventually create a whole society that inverts the premise.


People eventually begin to believe that people are in fact "born equal" or even, "deserve equality"…

"“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels

[Mortimer]

the oppossite of what you claim is liberalism/victim-mentality (which is not really liberalism) is anarchism not conservativism. in conservativism you are born with certain privileged rights because you are white or male or because tradition says so and there are mechanics which opress some groups in favour of other groups in a system which you claim the same about liberalism that you are born with rights because you are human or victim, it is the same in conservativism or nazism that you are born with more rights if you are white, aryan, german etc. the oppossite would be anarchism that everyone from birth needs to fight for his survivial and no one is entitled to any right per se which doesnt work out because we live in communities, in countries, in states in systems etc.

liberalism comes from liberte (latin freedom) it means certain rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press and such things, it has nothing to do with victim-mentality. and if you violate someones rights he is a victim of course and you get punished, so why would you call that victim-mentality as if it is something bad. victim-mentality to me means that you always see yourself as the victim even if you are not, and i would say that racists who complain about liberalism have a victim-mentality isnt that the same just another side of the coin? which means again all humans are the same or similar

[Unome]

the oppossite of what you claim is liberalism/victim-mentality (which is not really liberalism) is anarchism not conservativism. in conservativism you are born with certain privileged rights because you are white or male or because tradition says so and there are mechanics which opress some groups in favour of other groups in a system which you claim the same about liberalism that you are born with rights because you are human or victim, it is the same in conservativism or nazism that you are born with more rights if you are white, aryan, german etc. the oppossite would be anarchism that everyone from birth needs to fight for his survivial and no one is entitled to any right per se which doesnt work out because we live in communities, in countries, in states in systems etc.

Extreme liberalism is anarchism. An extreme liberal wants every human to be born "equally", in the same starting position as everybody else. But that isn't reality. Because some infants are born sick or crippled. Others are born healthy. If extreme liberals (anarchists) truly enforced their views then they would need to improve the health of sick babies and sabotage healthy babies. And anarchists would also want to restart human society in a harsh, inhospitable, barbarous environment. Anarchists generally are anti-government. Liberals are pro-government.

Privilege and victimization is different. Conservatives uphold traditions. And certain traditions favor/privilege some of the group more than others, and more than everybody outside the group. Yes, Conservatives are pro-privilege. Their groups "ought to be privileged". Because conservatives argue that their privileges are earned, through such things as hard-work, risk, and sacrifice.

Liberals tend to enjoy and claim benefits, while simultaneously attacking other privileges… exposing themselves as hypocrites.

Conservatism is about upholding & valuing traditions, not about being "born with privilege". For conservatives, privileges are earned after its group successfully upholds the tradition. Thus it is not the same comparison to inborn/innate "privileges".

Liberals correctly associate inborn traits, such as race, with privilege. But liberals habitually misunderstand the nature of privilege and its relationship with inborn traits.

liberalism comes from liberte (latin freedom) it means certain rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press and such things, it has nothing to do with victim-mentality. and if you violate someones rights he is a victim of course and you get punished, so why would you call that victim-mentality as if it is something bad. victim-mentality to me means that you always see yourself as the victim even if you are not, and i would say that racists who complain about liberalism have a victim-mentality isnt that the same just another side of the coin? which means again all humans are the same or similar

Only victims need rights (protection, security, law). Perpetrators do not need rights. This is why liberals are pro-victimization. I also mentioned in the thread that liberals have a more infantile/childish mental state, due to the nature of its idealistic tendency. So supporting "human rights" essentially means that all humans are (or should be) born with such rights. Children are born with protections. Protections are privileges. Privilege = protection.

So yes, liberalism is pro-victimization and enables victim mentality.

[Unome]

Queer "Families":

Catholic or Christian families do tradition right; liberals do it wrong.

Humanity and all evolved organisms persist through heterosexual (normal) relationships. However with the liberal drive to disrupt, defy, and deny nature… liberals (specifically speaking about those in US) are taking greater risks with their own lives and others. A huge problem for liberalism is Heterosexuality Normalcy. Instead liberals want to posit everything as a "Choice". Thus they claim it is somebody's "lifestyle choice" to have a queer family. A queer family is two gay men, two lesbian women, or two transsexuals, etc. who pretend to be married, "play house", and adopt children (since they obviously cannot have children themselves, naturally).

Here is an article that irks me and inspired today's post:

https://gma.yahoo.com/meet-bowsers-t...lifestyle.html

Meet the Bowser family. Bianca and Nick Bowser live with their sons Kai, 3, and Pax, 17 months, in Louisville, Kentucky, where no one knows their family secret, at least, until now.

“We fit … the basic definition of what a transgender person is,” Nick Bowser told ABC News’ “20/20.”

“But we are man and woman,” Bianca Bowser told “20/20.”

“That is the difference, so our children do not see us as transgender people,” Nick Bowser, 27, said. “We are mommy and daddy.”

Bianca Bowser, 32, grew up as a boy named Jason, and Nick was born as a girl named Nicole. They work in Louisville at the nightclub “Play,” where Nick is the manager and Bianca is a performer. Before they met, the two grew up in Georgia.

Video Explaining Child’s Transgender Identification Goes Viral
Leelah Alcorn: Transgender Teen's Reported Suicide Note Makes Dramatic Appeal
Transgender Couple Photographs Their Opposite Transitions
Watch the full story on ABC News' "20/20" on Friday, Jan. 16 at 10 p.m. ET.

“I guess I was about five years old. I remember sneaking into mom’s closet when she was off at work and putting on a pair of heels,” Bianca Bowser said. “I’ve always felt more liberated during those moments.”

For Nick, he said he always wanted to be a boy. “I looked at boys. I saw, you know, boys with their shirts off, and I was like, ‘That’s what I want to look like.’”

As teenagers, the two both felt trapped in their bodies and faced cruel taunts. Each came out as gay, but slowly realized that something still wasn’t right.

“It wasn’t until I got a little bit older that [I realized] I wasn’t a lesbian, and not all lesbians think how I think,” Nick Bowser said. “Basically, my brain is telling me I want to be a man.”

Said Bianca Bowser: “Twenty is when I came to terms with being transgender, starting to live my life as a woman, applying the makeup, wearing women’s clothing.”

Even with the self-discovery, neither expected to ever find a life mate. Both were taking hormones and considering expensive surgeries.

“I had planned on the gender reassignment surgery, and I was starting to save up my money for it,” Bianca Bowser said. “I had already made my plans, went through all my final therapy sessions, and then I met Nick.”

The two met at a local bar, and Nick Bowser said he quickly fell in love with Bianca Bowser. They dated, and in 2010, the couple married in a small ceremony in Georgia.

Because they both had their original sex organs, they started to address what every married couple does: having children.

After reviewing their options, the two decided to conceive children naturally with each other. Nick Bowser delivered both sons by C-section.

“It was more difficult for him than it was for me,” Bianca Bowser said.

Nick Bowser said, “The almost 20 months total of my life [when they had both kids] was probably the darkest time in my entire life. My brain was telling me that I was one person.

“My body looks like a completely different person. It was a daily struggle between mind and body. I didn’t want to leave the house.”

The parents know that there are even more difficult hurdles ahead, especially when they have to explain to their children who mommy and daddy are.

Nick and Bianca Bowser understand that their sons will have questions, but are prepared to talk Kai and Pax gradually in ways they can understand.

“I mean, that’s when we tell them sometimes men have babies, and sometimes mommies can’t have babies,” Nick Bowser said. “We’re telling them the truth, and I think that’s the most important thing, and in a way that they can understand.”

After Pax was born, Nick Bowser fulfilled his dream of having his breasts removed. As for Bianca Bowser’s gender re-assignment surgery, cost is still an issue.

“Now that we have our children, their well-being, their lives, that’s what’s important,” Bianca Bowser said. “If it comes around to where I am able to, then that would be great, but it’s no longer about me. It’s about our family.”

Added Nick Bowser: “We’re different, but we’re the same type of family everybody else is.”

Tune in for the full story on ABC News' "20/20" on Friday at 10 p.m. ET.

Now it should be obvious.

The "Queer Family" is a perversion of the traditional family. Instead of a father, mother, and children… liberals are instead attempting to mimic traditional family hierarchies except with minor changes, such as: father-father-child, mother-mother-child, trans-trans-child, etc. Why can't liberals/queers just "be normal"? Why do they feel the need to "express themselves" in such abnormal displays? These are big questions which few people want to talk about. Because the questions are difficult and complex, and expose deeper layers of humanity than most people ever want to think about.

You are born as you are. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the very existence of liberalism immediately indicates, gives evidence for, and proves an underlying neurosis. The liberal expresses dissatisfaction with the universe, or nature, "as it is". Liberals want to change reality, according to ideals. So it is an ideological conflict of realism v idealism, unchange v change. Ought the world stay as it is, do you want it to, or do you desire change? Do you desire a "better world" for yourself, for others, for anybody? Because if you wish to change the world, at all, in any small way, then this must indicate a liberal disposition at the smallest level.


Now the liberal attack on "tradition" greatly interests me. It's very fascinating to observe and watch, if not to study and investigate. Liberals have heralded many "successes" throughout the centuries, stemming from the European Enlightenment from which many of these ideologies were seeded, sprouted, and took root. It seems a noble endeavor to liberate the human spirit from such things as vices, disease, illness, oppression, evil, etc. But there is an opposite imbalance. Too much liberation is possible, as to become absurd and ridiculous, as it now seems.

Why do queer people ("weird people", abnormal people, different people) want to justify and live such lives? The easiest and simplest answer is "Social Justice Warrior". Queers actually are not doing what they do for themselves, per se, but for a greater cause. And that greater cause simply is "Liberalism" itself. Liberalism is a type of moral crusade. And in particular, liberalism attacks Catholic/Christian, traditional European Conservative values. It is a battle against the "evil white man", patriarchy (reactionary cause is Feminism, a liberal ideology), and "white privilege".

But is it a "privilege" to have a traditional family?

I personally see Queer family as a mockery, and attempt to insult Traditional family. It is an inferior type of imitation. Since the weird person ("queer") does not, will not, or cannot have his/her own family… instead feels it worthwhile to imitate family. And this idea leads to more profound observations about liberalism and the whole motivation behind queer family and queer lifestyle. If people imitate tradition, instead of practicing tradition, then what does this indicate about tradition, except that tradition is no privilege, and actually is a challenge?

What if it were more of a challenge in life to live "normally", build a traditional family, than to do otherwise?

What if Conservatism actually is the "socially justified choice"? The whole point of this thread is to correlate liberalism with victim-mentality. And the Social Justice Warrior operates from a premise of victimhood. Nature makes victims out of infants. Not all are born to privilege, so in the liberal mind, life is not fair …but ought to be so. And so liberals undertake great pains and struggles to "correct" or "justify" some inherent vice or evil.

But are liberals going in the right or wrong direction? Isn't it more meaningful that people strive and struggle toward tradition and conservative values, rather than a cheap, inferior imitation?


One more thing…

I believe that liberalism is much more insidious than it seems. Because the idea of "Queer Family" may not be as innocent as it sounds. Because what would it mean for a child to be raised with two gay fathers, two lesbian mothers, two queer transexuals??? What does liberalism do when put into action, and socially justified? How can this create anything "good" or have any positive effect, to anyone, at all? Not just individually, but socially. What is the effect of liberalism upon society?

I have other ideas and hypotheses stored, for further discussion. The idea of sexuality is more important. Why do liberals believe they can "change" sex or sexual nature? Why do liberals pretend that two homosexual men adopting a child can constitute a "family" to begin with? Is family artificial, or natural? And what is the ultimate foundation to family?

This response hopefully ought to inspire some original, authentic thinking around here… be honest and speak your thoughts.

[albosomething]

modern liberalism yes, classic liberalism nope, never.

[Unome]

modern liberalism yes, classic liberalism nope, never.

Classical liberalism ought to exclude privilege and resent victimization.

However modern liberalism is the reverse, including privilege and honoring victimization.

The liberal paradox: Can a person truly choose to be a victim in life or of life?

Isn't the opposite true, that people only choose not to be victims?

[Unome]

Undoing Liberalism:

Liberalism ultimately contradicts itself in one way more than any other, in parenting children.

The topic of child-favoritism was already put forward in the thread. Liberals are against everything that makes infants "unequal" based on being born. For example liberals claim that whites are privileged "for being born" white. And liberals claim males are privileged "for being born" male. Now you don't have to believe either. But the concept remains the same. Liberals are against "inborn injustice". Liberals are pro-equality. Liberals want "equal opportunity" for humanity. Even though this becomes impossible when some infants are born sick, deformed, mutated, and ill, compared to healthy babies. Also, should infants be born "rich", into a rich family? Is it morally wrong to want to pass a great sum of wealth, rightly earned, from parent to child?

Liberals embody the "favorite child" mentality, the personage of being the favorite child of the family. But this becomes a problem when liberals shift from immature childhood, into mature adulthood. Because privilege is a complex form of social status. The vast majority of favored children cannot remain spoiled forever. Because their daddy and mommy won't live forever. However the ideology of liberalism creates a type of "immortal daddy and mommy" that caters to the liberal mentality. This is known as the "daddy and mommy State". The State is seen as eternal provider, and true mother/father to the liberal person.

If you have problems then "The State" exists to take care of your problems. You are never responsible for yourself, as a liberal. Instead you are an eternal child. If you are sick then "The State" must provide you with care and doctors. If you are poor then "The State" must provide you with unemployment welfare checks and job opportunities. Where does all of this social security come from? Don't ask a liberal, they don't know, and don't care, as long as the money keeps flowing through The State. But where does The State get its money? The answer is simple: taxes.


Back to the main point, the biggest weakness of liberal ideology is child favoritism. Even if liberals could claim some noble pursuit for "equality and justice" of children, to remove all inborn "privileges" and to equalize the playing field, so that everybody is born with "equal opportunity" ~ even if liberals could have all that then liberalism would still fail in a huge way.

Shouldn't a parent favor his/her own biological children over those of strangers??? Let's refer to this as "biological favoritism". Would liberals favor their "Own" (biological) children over those of others? If you are a "true liberal" then you cannot admit to such. Because to biologically favor "your own" child would then lead to privilege. Biological children are privileged over other children. And this ultimately will lead to what liberals fear most, which is "social inequality" and social injustice.

You ought to see how liberal mentality contradicts itself in the greatest way. Liberals have a spoiled, favored child mentality, but then fight against "privilege".

You can understand and overcome liberalism by understanding the nature of this contradiction. It is not that liberals truly fight, nor care for, "social injustice". That is the Big Lie. They actually don't care about justice at all. Instead liberals actually fight for their own privileged state (as favored child). And they only fight for social equality up to a point, before the ruse is exposed. Liberalism actually supports wide-ranges of privilege and child favoritism; that is the whole point of liberalism. It is to pretend to care about equality, while secretly undermining itself and its efforts, in favor of its own privilege. That privilege is child favoritism and biological favoritism.


Liberals… ask yourselves one question before all others… is it morally wrong for a parent to favor (give privilege) to his/her own (biological) child, over that of strangers??? If it is wrong then liberalism retains a chance of ethical validity. If it is right then liberalism is just completely false, contradicting, and hypocritical. Liberalism cannot be maintained, if biological favoritism morally is righteous.

[Unome]

Preservation of Privilege as Power:

Why do people value privilege?

Because the average human being submits to society, government, and civilization. Civilization (Tradition) eventually overpowers 99.999% of humanity. Humanity is the embodiment of civilization, and civilizing forces (Emasculation). The many stand opposed to the few, majority (democracy) versus minority (oligarchy). How can one person resist civilization & society forever? Children tend to be idealistic, hopeful, and faithful. This is the reason why children tend to be liberals; adults tend to be conservatives. Because liberals believe they can change civilization or nature. Liberals believe that "the world can be a better place!" Liberals believe that they have the power to change the world.

But what about privilege then? Privilege is the protection assigned to infants and newborns by (biological) parents. People assign privilege to those too weak to defend themselves (children). Mothers protect their young. That is nature!!! That is what/who nature is, the embodiment of nature & instinct. Thus to truly resist nature, is to go against the very essence of life. You cannot resist this. Because the heart of nature is the preservation of life (sexual reproduction, bearing & raising children). To truly resist nature is a futile attempt to deny the sexual impulse. Impotency is not the same as denying the potent urge to reproduce, which exists in all life.

Privilege is mercy, upon those weaker than the strongest. Humanity is the strongest force/animal/specie upon Earth. Thus humanity is the embodiment of privilege assignment. Privilege is doled-out by the strongest humans ("superior") to the least, the weakest humans ("inferior"). Mercy is compassion. Liberalism seeks to extend "Human Rights" across the world. This is a codeword, an innuendo, a secret meaning. Instead what truly is meant is the extension of compassion and mercy across the world.

Liberals mistake privilege for power. But this is false. Because a newborn infant is not powerful in the casual, common usage of the term. People do not look at children and see power. Instead they see potential. They see the ability to change, to grow, and to become powerful. But children are not powerful themselves. Since power is also a function of maturity and adulthood (conservatism). For example adults physically are stronger than teenagers and children, also mentally and emotionally.

A liberal will observe an infant crying out for his/her mother, and mistake this for power. "The infant has power over (influence) the mother." This is a mistaken, limited interpretation of power. It is assigned to crying, whining, begging as a source of power. It is an appeal to a specific dynamic (child-mother relationship). Maybe there is a valid argument, but probably not.

Privilege should not be mistaken for the power of the mother-child relationship. Because although there is influence (crying-child)… it should not become mistaken and replaced with the power of provision. The mother has power over the child. Because the crying is not power-itself, but instead, an appeal to power (provision). The infant wants something the mother has (nourishment, health, care, protection). So where then is the "privilege" in the mother-child relationship, in the child's appeal (crying) or in the mother's provision (nourishment, breast feeding)?

The liberal will claim that the power is in the child (crying).
The conservative will claim that the power is in the mother (nourishment).

[Unome]

Liberalism and Marxism:

Marxism is the anti-cultural, anti-classist ideology, proposing "Equality for all mankind!"

But is this good? Is it moral? Let's think about this… does a rich person want to be "equal" to a poor person? Beautiful equal to ugly? Strong equal to weak? Smart equal to stupid? No, in fact it is the opposite. Only the inferior trait, poor, ugly, weak, stupid, wants and demands "Equality". Always, there are no exceptions to this rule. Therefore Marxism only appeals to the inferior traits. It is never the superior trait that "demands equality" to the inferior trait. And so, people are unequal. Because people fight each-other, compete, for superiority and superior traits.

What humans call "Evolution" is the macro level competition for superior traits.

That's all "Evolution" truly is. This is simple to understand. People want more & more superior traits. Every single human on earth wants the better traits. Why? Because superior traits indicate, are evidence for, and prove the nature of privilege (as I've outlined already). The purpose for superior traits is the success of previous competitions. For example, let's say you win 100 races. Don't you want a prize? Don't you want a medal? Bragging rights? Don't you want anything, for winning? Yes, again, it's universal. People compete for rewards. Those rewards are privileges.

The trick and ruse of Marxism is convincing the masses (90% of humanity) that everybody "Deserves" superior traits, just for being born. It depends on an equivocation fallacy. Marxism offers the ideal of "Equality" to everybody. But that really is not the point. The point is to cause rebellion and revolt. The equivocation is this… that people are born privileged. That people are born rich, strong, beautiful, smart, etc. If babies are not born with such qualities then Marxism is dismissed. It can't make logical or common sense. In fact, privilege is always a struggle. There neither is a time nor stage of life when people are "automatically privileged". That is false.

If a rich, strong, beautiful, or smart father and mother have a child then that doesn't automatically gift the child of the same traits. Rather the maintenance of superior traits are always ongoing. There is always an upkeep, always a competition at work. Privilege may very well depend upon the "oppression" of inferior traits. Inferior traits are always lacking, by definition, and so resent others who are "more of X than I am". Instead of self-improvement or consolation, what does the inferior person do???

The inferior person attempts to steal or destroy the superior person. Marxism supports this destruction.


Now apply all the previous points to culture. What does it mean to have a "superior culture" versus an inferior culture? All of the same points can be analogized. Those with inferior culture (traits) wish to destroy superior culture (traits).

It is easier to steal then to make for yourself.
It is easier to destroy then to create for yourself.

Marxism taps into these human drive, in human nature.


Liberals are pro-Marxist in a specific sense. Liberals want all babies to be born with "Equal Opportunity". Everybody should start life "on the same footing". This maybe just as impossible as the Marxist war on classes. Because "inequality" (distinction between superior and inferior traits) is the result of competition. Can you stop human competition? No, but liberal marxists really try to do so. Liberal Marxism attempts to end human competition. What is the ultimate desire and result? "World Peace", utopia, love for all, etc.