It really is an astonishing, and very likely unique, quality of our declining Western civilization that victim status is a source of such power. My quick and dirty thought is that it is part of the detritus of Christianity, an element central to a faith founded on the sacrifice of an innocent victim, but one that, taken out of its native context, becomes toxic and cancerous.
This explains much of liberalism, I think. Like animals or plants taken out of their native ecosystem, where they are held in check by other plants or animals, they often wreak havoc on their new environment.
A once brilliant and incomparably accomplished culture now falls apart over an array of half-truths and fraudulent slogans. One of them is that having been mistreated by someone more powerful than you endows you with unassailable moral virtue. Like the kind that harridan Maureen Dowd bestowed on feckless Cindy Sheehan*. Nietzsche was not altogether wrong about slave morality and ressentiment.
I am skeptical by default when any group cries that it is the victim of groundless suspicion, dislike, contempt or hatred. As if it were the Christ himself, who was supposedly "hated without cause." (Ps 69.4). Or hated because of its excessive virtue or accomplishment.
Jews like to play this game, asserting that anti-Semitism, despite being so widespread both in space and time, is an inexplicable response to them, for which they bear no responsibility at all. Or that it is mere envy of their gifts. Gays are very very good at it. Blacks are virtuosos.
And since anti-White feeling is often discussed in this blog, let me say that I assume that people who dislike Whites do have their reasons, too.
One of the many lies of liberalism is that no group deserves anything less than acceptance...unless they are H8ers who refuse to accept all other groups. The ignorance of history and human nature here is jaw-dropping, and widespread, almost axiomatic.
But using victim status as a moral cudgel, that is what I do not accept. Being victimized doesn't make you virtuous, it just makes you victimized.
---
*Both excellent reasons for repealing the 19th Amendment.
PS. Official victims had power in Communist societies like Mao's China, where class background was a determinative marker. Access to education was, for a time I believe, granted by that criterion alone rather than talent. My recollection is that it was a disaster.
This explains much of liberalism, I think. Like animals or plants taken out of their native ecosystem, where they are held in check by other plants or animals, they often wreak havoc on their new environment.
A once brilliant and incomparably accomplished culture now falls apart over an array of half-truths and fraudulent slogans. One of them is that having been mistreated by someone more powerful than you endows you with unassailable moral virtue. Like the kind that harridan Maureen Dowd bestowed on feckless Cindy Sheehan*. Nietzsche was not altogether wrong about slave morality and ressentiment.
I am skeptical by default when any group cries that it is the victim of groundless suspicion, dislike, contempt or hatred. As if it were the Christ himself, who was supposedly "hated without cause." (Ps 69.4). Or hated because of its excessive virtue or accomplishment.
Jews like to play this game, asserting that anti-Semitism, despite being so widespread both in space and time, is an inexplicable response to them, for which they bear no responsibility at all. Or that it is mere envy of their gifts. Gays are very very good at it. Blacks are virtuosos.
And since anti-White feeling is often discussed in this blog, let me say that I assume that people who dislike Whites do have their reasons, too.
One of the many lies of liberalism is that no group deserves anything less than acceptance...unless they are H8ers who refuse to accept all other groups. The ignorance of history and human nature here is jaw-dropping, and widespread, almost axiomatic.
But using victim status as a moral cudgel, that is what I do not accept. Being victimized doesn't make you virtuous, it just makes you victimized.
---
*Both excellent reasons for repealing the 19th Amendment.
PS. Official victims had power in Communist societies like Mao's China, where class background was a determinative marker. Access to education was, for a time I believe, granted by that criterion alone rather than talent. My recollection is that it was a disaster.
5 comments:
I came upon your blog by chance. I must say - you come across as rather shallow.(and I do not mean this to offend you - I am speaking of your comments in particular).
What makes you think anyone really needs a reason to hate another group of people? Hatred is something that is common in many people and all one needs is an excuse. You might consider that truth before making various pronouncements on different minority groups.
How can you call someone shallow and then say you don't mean to offend them?
Call me shallow all day, just don't add the pious disclaimer after that.
As for your second paragraph, it's a combination of pointless and beside the point.
Does the ubiquity of group hatred mean that everyone should therefore like everyone?
Silly.
Sir,
You can call someone shallow if in fact they are shallow (without it meaning to be an insult).
"Does the ubiquity of group hatred mean that everyone should therefore like everyone?"
No of course not. That was not my point. My main point (if I may be blunt about it) is that you are a bigot (again another fact - (though not meant as an insult).
And that bigotry is not only stupid but morally heinous.
I hope I have clarified myself this time.
You clarified yourself the first time. You are talking in a loop. It is inadmissible in your loop to perceive any ethnic or racial group as a threat --regardless of facts or actual states of affairs--or that makes you a "bigot" and that's baaaad. Talk about shallow.
"You clarified yourself the first time. You are talking in a loop. It is inadmissible in your loop to perceive any ethnic or racial group as a threat --regardless of facts or actual states of affairs--or that makes you a "bigot" and that's baaaad. Talk about shallow."
Of course that is bad. Anyone with any sense understands that basically people have much more in common than that which divides them... and that which differentiates various groups(ie. skin pimentation, ethnicity,and even cultural differences)really are relatively superficial issues.
Now I could try to explain to you why this is so but somehow I think you are set in your views.
Basically what I was trying to state earlier to you is that within all groups are complex individuals (and every human being on this earth has complexity btw). Furthermore to make blanket statements on individuals based on their ethnic/"racial" group can be not only simplistic - but also morally dubious very often... (especially in the context of your comments).
Post a Comment