Victim mentalities and methodoligies

Despite all rational thought to the contrary, victim mentalities have taken over our world.  Groups of people use various victim tactics to gain support, weakening the lead race (typically white european-ancestry males) and thereby eventually become hidden centers of power.  Most insidiously, anyone who questions the dominate paradigm is labeled with various epithets that the group-think horde judges and marginalizes.

The difference between ‘mentality’ and ‘methodology’ is that the first is a learned response, an individual response, and a result of cultural learning.  Methodology is a purposeful group-think story that is foisted onto the culture at large.

Women and to a lesser extent blacks are easy groups to point to that use victim methodologies, but there are other groups out there, you know who they are.  These groups out there convince culture – and white males by proxy- a narrative that goes something like this: “oh, poor us, we never had a fair shot, we have always been victimized, we just want things to be equal’.  What is notably is this narrative fits for all victim-groups out there, their complaints (unfounded I might add) are all similar and fit the same standard operation procedure.

What is notably about victim methodologies is twofold, one is that is prevents criticism of the group, and second is alleviates them of personal responsibility thrusting it elsewhere.  It is someone else’s fault (read: white males).  It is white males fault my ancestors were enslaved and I am still a victim.  It is white males fault the patriarchy is keeping me down etc etc.

Another comment is that if your race/culture is one engaging in methodologies, that does not mean that individuals will have the personal victim mentality.  For example blacks have a very coherent racial methodology of victimhood, but this does not extend to the individual level nearly the same intensity it does for women.  So remember that even if individuals of a group do not throw victim-hood in your face, it does not mean the entire group engages in radical victimization to achieve their ends.

Want to know an example?  How about the jewish people and the ‘holocaust’ which is endlessly paraded in front of us as some sort of atrocity to end all atrocities.  How come regardless of the number that supposedly died, THAT ALONE is the major humanitarian disaster everyone knows from the war?  Maybe because history is written by the victors, and our atrocities like the russian bolshivik revolution (with easily over 10 million+ dead), the bombing of dresden (over 100,000 dead in one bombing) the Katyn Massacre where the Russian MURDERED polish soldiers (they were ‘allies’ in case you didnt know) and blamed it on the nazis, or US bombing japan civilian centers for over 200,000 deaths in one fell swoop?  Do any of these matter?  Or because the victim methodology has successfully reprogrammed our minds, where only what the enemy did mattered?

This rise of victim-hood is in direct synchronicity of the rise of Slave Mentality, which is based on Nietzche’s idea.  I will talk at length of the Master vs Slave mentality at length soon, but know they are related.

As a society and a people, we have accepted this as a standard way people act, and the worst part, is we condone and placate to them.  Do not do this, it only encourages the decline of our civilization.

ek13

 

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Victim mentalities and methodoligies

  1. EK,

    In the social-political context, I would cite to Marx and his direct offshoots (eg, Gramsci) as well as, and ahead of, citing to Nietzsche. I agree Nietzsche’s good/evil stuff is relevant, but his relevance in the social-political context is mainly due to his relationship to Marx as alienation theorists.

    Marx is best known for his reductionist economic-class historical theory, but that platform was built upon his original work with Hegelian alienation theory, which Nietzsche used as his jumping off point in a different direction – dominant society v alienated individual as opposed to Marx’s dominant class v alienated class.

    Marx’s goal was altruistic: save all of humanity, including capitalist owners, from alienation by making his theorized most-alienated economic class, ie, the proletariat, into the dominant class. (You see echoes of Marx’s original utopian claim in the occasional claim by militant feminists that the ultimate victory and dominance of feminism will save men, too.) He linked this ‘class struggle’ to a progressively linear historical trend … that didn’t actually exist as Marx formulated it. *

    [* Look up Max Weber, who also jumped off from Marx’s work in alienation theory while ‘correcting’ the gaping holes in Marx’s historical theory by re-factoring culture and other causal variables that Marx subsumed and effectively ignored.]

    In contrast to present-day Marxist methodologists, Marx did not intend to create an infinitely adaptable fill-in-the-blank victim class. His historical theory was strictly, if fallaciously, based on economic class. Yet Marx formulated the practical basis – once his reductionist economic historical theory was stripped out – for an awesomely effective and resilient zero-sum tribal conflict methodology that cannot save humanity as Marx intended, short of genocide. Sort of like the guys who, with only altruistic intentions, invented nuclear power.

    More relevant to your thesis, the Marxist methodological conflict model doesn’t allow for ultimate co-existence or toleration. Like Marx required ultimate dominance by the proletariat to save humanity, the Marxist methodological conflict model is either/or in terms of subject/object, oppressor/oppressed, reified-consciousness/alienation – ie, there can be only one.

    As such, Marxism is fundamentally antithetical to liberalism, as American liberals understood through the early mid-20th century. Since then, though, the Marxists have thoroughly corrupted and co-opted the American liberal establishment. Much of what we call ‘liberal’ now is actually Marxist, not liberal.

      • My last 2 paragraphs point to the practical influence of methodological Marxism today.

        The alienation theory that underlies both Marxism and Nietzche’s work is essentially, when translated into practical form, normative. In practice, the essential either/or of Marxism is norm/stigma – the Nietzschean blue pill/red pill writ to society.

        In the Marxist view, normalizing a set of preferred social values (eg, feminism, multiculturalism) requires the stigmatization and eventual usurpation of the norms (eg, patriarchy, Anglo-American primacy) that currently define the status quo.

        No contradictory ‘live and let live’ is allowed in the collective consciousness or general will (Rousseau). At most, competing social value sets can be tolerated if and only if they’re held powerless on the margin of society. No competing influence on the general will proper is to be tolerated.

        Imagine Nietzsche’s work had focused on victim class-conscious rebellion rather than repressed individual-conscious rebellion. It would in practice look a lot like methodological Marxism, right? (The fundamental difference being class consciousness relies necessarily on the socially shared, internalized value set of the class to bind class members, whereas Nietzsche’s red-pill overman presumptively rejects social values in order to reify the values of his own creation or at least his own choosing.)

        The bottom-line is when you’re engaged in a social competition with methodological Marxists, know that the contest for them is zero sum and for keeps, and social dominance is to be acquired by any means necessary. Because for Marxists, the collective consciousness only allows for one set of operative norms. One Ring to rule them all, One ring to find them; One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

        The usurpation of the American liberal establishment by Marxists that I mentioned in the last paragraph of my earlier comment is relevant for understanding the language dissonance. The social theory of the American liberal tradition is derived from the English individual-based philosophy of Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, and Mill – not the European collective-based philosophy of Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Marx. Basic American political concepts like rights, social contract, equality, and tolerance have particular meanings in the American liberal tradition, based on the English philosophy we used to found our nation. Marxists who wear a liberal mask, however, are European collectivists who apply fundamentally different meanings to those concepts.

        A necessary step in reversing the Marxist wave is purging the Marxist corruption from the American liberal establishment, which may be impossible at this point.

        • Excellent delineation, the problem I foresee, and you allude to at the end, is the very fine-line of delineation, I hardly understood until you wrote this all out, the average person isn’t going to have a clue.

      • PS: A way to understand the fundamental difference is methodological Marxism is Darwinian, or an evolutionary struggle for dominance of the collective space, while the American liberal tradition is contractual, or agreement by individuals to resolve conflicts in the *shared* space while balancing, preserving, and fostering particular interests.

        There would still be tension between authority and consent in American politics without the Marxist influence, such as our pre-Marx rebellion against our not-wholly unreasonable English king, but the Marxist virus has knocked us off our liberal track.

      • EK,

        Thanks. I recommend these intro-level lectures by then-Yale Professor Ivan Szelenyi – http://oyc.yale.edu/sociology/socy-151 – that relate together foundational social theorists, including Marx and Nietszche, in a historical or sequential context.

        As a MGTOW, I’m of course a fan of Nietzsche. From a social political perspective, I’m a fan of Emile Durkheim, the final social theorist covered in Szelenyi’s course. In line with Durkheim’s work, I believe diversity should be the great American organic social strength that’s advertised by liberals. But the methodological Marxism corrupting liberals and dominating our social politics has fucked it up and twisted it into Heartiste’s implosive ‘Diversity + Proximity = War’. Also in line with Durkheim’s work, I believe the founding fathers, with their English individual-based contractual view of society, failed to sufficiently account for common culture as a factor in their formulation of America.

      • Me: “Basic American political concepts like rights, social contract, equality, and tolerance … ”

        A big concept I left off: Freedom. Freedom has a different meaning for the methodological individualists of the English tradition than it does for the methodological collectivists of the European tradition. I left off other concepts, such as fairness and the greater or common good, but freedom is a big one.

        Are we an aggregate of individuals who associate and contract? Or are we a collective body politic? Put them in a room and the two look the same, but they’re not the same.

  2. EK, you’ve mentioned your ambivalence about the military many times.
    I’d say it probably isn’t for you. People actually often go in gung-ho about it and even then can become disenchanted. Once you sign the papers, you’re in.

    • For example, when my husband got in, he’d have sold his left nut to fly fighters. Before the end of his commitment, he was very much looking forward to getting out (but then he got a deal he couldn’t refuse as a test pilot and stayed in…if not for that, he’d have been out much sooner).

    • Joining the military is a gamble. Some people go in with optimistic preconceived notions that are disappointed. Other people go in with no affinity, do it for the pay and benefits, then discover their affinity while in, and come out with a changed worldview and a positive experience. Some soldiers say they joined only intending to do one term of enlistment, then made a career of it. Some ex-soldiers say they joined intending on a career but didn’t stay.

      EK can gather information to stack the odds in his favor and, if he decides to give it a shot, maximize his recruitment, but he can’t know for sure the military is for him until he does it for a few years. It depends on whether he’s willing to bet the amount of his life required for a term of enlistment in order to find out whether military service suits him. I don’t know how old EK is, but it’s an easy bet to make for a 18-20 year old, but a not so easy bet for someone in his late 20s, early 30s range.

  3. Pingback: Recent stories of February 2014 | vulture of critique

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s