Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Explaining the privileged Victim Culture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Explaining the privileged Victim Culture

    One again, Black Pigeon hits it out of the park -





    The current SJW mob has to look years & decades into the past to find excuses to persecute people. The Oscars had no host because of something Kevin Hart tweeted a decade ago.
    Nascar driver Connor Daily lost a major sponsor because his father used the N-word a decade before he was born!
    The fanatics even worked themselves into a frenzy because of a 1971 interview John Wayne did....

    How did the Cult of Oppression become the dominant power in culture and society today?


    Now that you have read that, you can skip the first 6 minutes!
    The remaining 8 minutes are well worth your time.

    Last edited by Salinator; 06 Mar 19, 17:05.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

  • #2
    Unfortunately victim culture has its benefits and will likely win Trump a second term. Republicans have convinced their selves and most of the country that whites have fallen victim to multiculturalism, immigration and non discriminatory policies. Relative deprivation plays a factor in this, as described here: https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...d-5-key-traits

    This is why movements like the alt right and anti white genocide have captured such a large audience. You have people who feel they're entitled to something they may not have and instead of competing they rather play victim.

    Victim culture will only cease to exist when there's no longer any benefit to playing victim. Thus we have to stop buying into their fake stories. There is no such thing as a white genocide (it's not happening), liberals are not racist against whites and accepting other cultures will not be the downfall of anyone.
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
      Unfortunately victim culture has its benefits and will likely win Trump a second term. Republicans have convinced their selves and most of the country that whites have fallen victim to multiculturalism, immigration and non discriminatory policies. Relative deprivation plays a factor in this, as described here: https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...d-5-key-traits

      This is why movements like the alt right and anti white genocide have captured such a large audience. You have people who feel they're entitled to something they may not have and instead of competing they rather play victim.

      Victim culture will only cease to exist when there's no longer any benefit to playing victim. Thus we have to stop buying into their fake stories. There is no such thing as a white genocide (it's not happening), liberals are not racist against whites and accepting other cultures will not be the downfall of anyone.
      You may have something there.. In 1941, when my father left home, he hadn't spoken to a person of color ( except First Nations).
      For eighteen months in Jamaica, he was in a white colonial culture that he remembers as 'paternally inane, trying to 'keep things as they were, in the midst of war....."

      Seeing the racial clash through fresh eyes ....
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • #4
        Unless you are racist all problems are cultural, accepting other cultures is idenitarian politics and by definition racist. When Obama spoke of the clingers he did identify a central problem of humanity in so far as humans are tribal. The problem is he only applied the definition to one group. The logic should be that all cultures are equally open to critique because ever ethnicity by definition are clingers. What Obama failed to recognize was that as post modernism and neo Marxism replaced the old "liberal" ideology the only legitimate claim the left every made was abandon. The abandoned insight was that rigid class distinctions were detrimental to society. Intersectionality and multiculturalism are serious perversions of liberalism. What the somewhat vacuous thinkers of Obama's social group will not admit to is that decolonization is just another way of saying that the enemy of socialism is liberal democracy and that multiculturalism is just Marxism through the back door.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          . . . . multiculturalism is just Marxism through the back door.

          I'm confused. Didn't Marx and Engels write that nation-states and nationalism are merely the creation of the bourgeoisie for the purpose of controlling the proletariat's passions, to keep them divided against each other so that they won't learn that they're really suffering the same capitalistic oppression, and that their common enemies are their own local bourgeoisie and capitalists? Did not Lenin and Stalin and Tito violently suppress nationalism from among their respective states' constituent nationalities and ethnicities, among both ethnic minorities and majorities alike? While it's true that during the Cold War the USSR supported all manner of "national liberation" movements, their rationalization that they were fighting colonialism only went so far, and such activities on the Soviets' part actually turned off a lot of would-be Western recruits who, despite the fact that they were mostly addled-brained adolescents, they were still able to see through the USSR's transparent canard: invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia rather betrayed the truth about Soviet propaganda. In short, "multiculturalism" was never, and has never, been consistent with Marxist goals. Rather, Marxism envisions a day when all current iterations of human culture are replaced with a new universalist socialist culture, that does away with ancient tribalisms and nationalistic differentiations. There's no "multi-" about it. It's rather absolutist. In short, "multiculturalism" is counter to Marxism, and Marxism is inherently hostile to multiculturalism.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post


            I'm confused. Didn't Marx and Engels write that nation-states and nationalism are merely the creation of the bourgeoisie for the purpose of controlling the proletariat's passions, to keep them divided against each other so that they won't learn that they're really suffering the same capitalistic oppression, and that their common enemies are their own local bourgeoisie and capitalists? Did not Lenin and Stalin and Tito violently suppress nationalism from among their respective states' constituent nationalities and ethnicities, among both ethnic minorities and majorities alike? While it's true that during the Cold War the USSR supported all manner of "national liberation" movements, their rationalization that they were fighting colonialism only went so far, and such activities on the Soviets' part actually turned off a lot of would-be Western recruits who, despite the fact that they were mostly addled-brained adolescents, they were still able to see through the USSR's transparent canard: invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia rather betrayed the truth about Soviet propaganda. In short, "multiculturalism" was never, and has never, been consistent with Marxist goals. Rather, Marxism envisions a day when all current iterations of human culture are replaced with a new universalist socialist culture, that does away with ancient tribalisms and nationalistic differentiations. There's no "multi-" about it. It's rather absolutist. In short, "multiculturalism" is counter to Marxism, and Marxism is inherently hostile to multiculturalism.
            Don't look for consistency in vacuous philosophies

            Multiculturalism relies on post Modernism to establish an extreme form of relativism. All truths are subjective to the post Modernist so no objective distinctions can be made between cultures. Although post Modernist say there are no grand narratives that we can rely on many post Modernists are Marxists. There is an apparent contradiction but they do away with it by referring to the first principle where any distinctions you make are subjective. Capitalism they will tell you subjectively imposes distinctions that favor the white male patriarchy. Marxism they say does away with the subjective distinctions because it is classless. More importantly the revolutionary act of embracing the subjective distinctions that capitalism makes are beneficial to society if you fall into one of the oppressed distinctions. If you embrace a non oppressed identity then you have no legitimate voice because your voice is counterrevolutionary and oppressive.

            You have to understand that post Modernism evolved after it became clear that the Soviet Union and Chinese communism were brutal and oppressive regimes. It was becoming increasingly difficult to support a Marxist world view. Since Marx's predictions had failed to materialize and most western countries were experiencing a growing middle class something else besides class had to be found to bring about the revolution. That something else was inter-sectionalism. Inter-sectionalism erases all distinctions between the various oppressed groups by making oppression there primary identity. As we saw earlier their identity was to be highlighted to be in opposition to the oppressive identity imposed on them by the white male patriarchy. It seems contradictory unless you remember that the identities are subjective expressions of power dynamics. If you think it sounds a lot like males can be females and females male or that you can identify as a race that is itself an arbitrary social distinction then you will start to see how it all fits together.

            These people are not stupid. They identified a philosophical question for which there is no answer. Namely that there are a near infinite number of possible interpretations for any classification. Classifications after all are necessarily arbitrary. What makes it horrendous is that classifications are a practical necessity.

            It isn't surprising that the same ideology produces concepts such as emotional intelligence while at the same time denying biological determinism. The contradiction in which they also reject social constructionist is linked to the tabula rasa view of human nature that is inherent in Marxism. In a way it reflects the trivial truth that your feelings determine reality. It is a rejection of the central Western tradition of evidence and reason where evidence is decoupled from experience. The flaw is that emotions are at their heart instincts and tied to the very deterministic nature of evolution. When I say that your feelings determine reality all I mean is that without emotions there would be no experience, the post Modernist of course mean something completely different. It's instincts that allow us to breath, to suckle, to acquire language, to see, to hear, to bond with others and all the other essential prerequisites for experience.

            What the post Modernists get right and the scientific determinists inadvertently left as an opening for the destructive ideology to creep in through is the rejection of the idea that the abstract is real. An excellent example and perhaps the most serious crisis in modern Western society is the determinists denial of freewill. People on almost opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum have made this observation and are trying to correct it. For opposites I would suggest Jordan Peterson and Daniel Dennett. I'm sure there are many things they agree on but for allegorical purposes we will simple use them as examples. Peterson uses biblical stories to explain are evolution while Dennett uses evolution to explain away religious precepts. What they would agree on is the need for a concept of freewill to have a functional society. Keep in mind there is no more a scientific basis for freewill than there is for money, baseball or monogamy. Freewill is a abstraction that allows us to manipulate the complexity of physical reality. Like money and baseball it doesn't exist in the scientific sense. But like money the absence of freewill has physical consequences. To illustrate further it is an intuition pump that like mathematics assumes an absolute where there are none. Although mathematics are an abstract language that isn't real in the physical sense it allows us to build computers that can interact with physical reality although it is only machine language that makes it possible.

            It would be misleading to assert that Marx or any of the other philosophies discussed are the cause. There is no single cause for the many cults that are sweeping through society. Marxism is like scientific creationism the thin veneer that lends intellectual respectability to the impulses that have threatened every civilization. Humans take a perverse joy in the destruction of existing order which always feels like tyranny instinctively. Tribalism is natural complex civilization any thing but natural.

            The preference for revealed truth over evidence and reason is nothing new. Cults not only lend a sense of respectability to being the revolutionary but also a sense of superiority and belonging. All you have to do is believe, it's the easiest way to get a dophamine hit that hierarchies of competence deny you.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post


              I'm confused. Didn't Marx and Engels write that nation-states and nationalism are merely the creation of the bourgeoisie for the purpose of controlling the proletariat's passions, to keep them divided against each other so that they won't learn that they're really suffering the same capitalistic oppression, and that their common enemies are their own local bourgeoisie and capitalists? Did not Lenin and Stalin and Tito violently suppress nationalism from among their respective states' constituent nationalities and ethnicities, among both ethnic minorities and majorities alike? While it's true that during the Cold War the USSR supported all manner of "national liberation" movements, their rationalization that they were fighting colonialism only went so far, and such activities on the Soviets' part actually turned off a lot of would-be Western recruits who, despite the fact that they were mostly addled-brained adolescents, they were still able to see through the USSR's transparent canard: invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia rather betrayed the truth about Soviet propaganda. In short, "multiculturalism" was never, and has never, been consistent with Marxist goals. Rather, Marxism envisions a day when all current iterations of human culture are replaced with a new universalist socialist culture, that does away with ancient tribalisms and nationalistic differentiations. There's no "multi-" about it. It's rather absolutist. In short, "multiculturalism" is counter to Marxism, and Marxism is inherently hostile to multiculturalism.
              Multiculturalism is basically Marx redefined. Instead of classes based on economic measures, multiculturalism bases classes on race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like. So, instead of a classless society, the multiculturalist wants a cultureless society. If culture consists of everything, then there is no cultural difference.
              If gender is whatever you want it to be, gender is made irrelevant. Racial differences only exist to further what in classic Marx would be class struggle.
              Thus, Marx is preserved in a new format that is just as useless and wrong as the original but now repackaged as "new and improved."
              Multiculturalism is simply the new stepping stone to a Communist utopia replacing the failed Marxist ideas on economics.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                Multiculturalism is basically Marx redefined. Instead of classes based on economic measures, multiculturalism bases classes on race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like. So, instead of a classless society, the multiculturalist wants a cultureless society. If culture consists of everything, then there is no cultural difference.
                If gender is whatever you want it to be, gender is made irrelevant. Racial differences only exist to further what in classic Marx would be class struggle.
                Thus, Marx is preserved in a new format that is just as useless and wrong as the original but now repackaged as "new and improved."
                Multiculturalism is simply the new stepping stone to a Communist utopia replacing the failed Marxist ideas on economics.
                I would be leery of not giving the devil his due. All the things that they are complaining about do exist. It's about perspective and pragmatism.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                  I would be leery of not giving the devil his due. All the things that they are complaining about do exist. It's about perspective and pragmatism.
                  The original concepts of Marx existed too. The problem then, and now, is that the Left sees all of this (class, culture, multiculturalism, etc.) as immutable without the force of government to redistribute things and make them equal. They don't grasp that the economic pie isn't of fixed size, any more than they grasp that not all cultures are equal and that they can change-- on their own without government-- over time.
                  Marx had the same limitation. He saw the working class as always stuck being the working class. The poor would always be poor. The rich would always be rich. Class mobility, and by extension cultural, gender, or whatever the Left comes up with, are all fixed entities.
                  So, in their multicultural worldview, American Blacks are oppressed and cannot rise to become rich and successful If somehow they do, it is because government stepped in and allowed it to happen. In short, it's the oblivious idiocy of Obama's statement, "You didn't build that!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    They have an answer for that it's called a stateless society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a temporary condition.

                    There are two aspects to the leftist phenomenon what they do and what they believe. Saul Alinsky was the prototype for Obama. They were both community organizers in Chicago and Obama could be said to have followed in Alinsky's shoes. Obama's personal beliefs are more opaque but Alinsky was known by his close associates to be in private a revolutionary Marxist. In public Alinsky appeared to be a moderate socialist. In reality a moderate socialist meant death to the established order by a thousand cuts not a reasonable reformer. That is the old Marxist nihilism.

                    Alinsky however proceeded the post Modernists who would prove to be a different kind of nihilist. They weren't just interested in the destruction of liberal democracy but the intellectual and "spiritual" core of Western Civilization. There was an element of that in the 60s revolutionaries but the French intellectuals gave it philosophical legitimacy within the academic establishment. People like Alinsky set the stage but the post Modernists provided a framework for the new Marxism.

                    It is important to understand the nihilism because without it neo Marxism is just another social reform movement. One of the post Modernists in particular exemplifies the "spiritual" or psychological motivations behind the movement. That would be Michael Foucault.

                    Embracing the Parisian avant-garde, Foucault entered into a romantic relationship with the serialist composer Jean Barraqué. Together, they tried to produce their greatest work, heavily used recreational drugs and engaged in sado-masochistic sexual activity.
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

                    Foucault has been accused of intentionally spreading AIDs. A kind of nihilistic attitude that is worth pondering.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      I would be leery of not giving the devil his due. All the things that they are complaining about do exist. It's about perspective and pragmatism.
                      The video covers that, was there something BP got wrong there?
                      "Why is the Rum gone?"

                      -Captain Jack

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

                        The video covers that, was there something BP got wrong there?
                        I watched it earlier today, I will watch it again tomorrow and comment.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Person with victim complex complains about 'victim culture'. Too funny.
                          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post


                            I'm confused. Didn't Marx and Engels write that nation-states and nationalism are merely the creation of the bourgeoisie for the purpose of controlling the proletariat's passions, to keep them divided against each other so that they won't learn that they're really suffering the same capitalistic oppression, and that their common enemies are their own local bourgeoisie and capitalists? Did not Lenin and Stalin and Tito violently suppress nationalism from among their respective states' constituent nationalities and ethnicities, among both ethnic minorities and majorities alike? While it's true that during the Cold War the USSR supported all manner of "national liberation" movements, their rationalization that they were fighting colonialism only went so far, and such activities on the Soviets' part actually turned off a lot of would-be Western recruits who, despite the fact that they were mostly addled-brained adolescents, they were still able to see through the USSR's transparent canard: invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia rather betrayed the truth about Soviet propaganda. In short, "multiculturalism" was never, and has never, been consistent with Marxist goals. Rather, Marxism envisions a day when all current iterations of human culture are replaced with a new universalist socialist culture, that does away with ancient tribalisms and nationalistic differentiations. There's no "multi-" about it. It's rather absolutist. In short, "multiculturalism" is counter to Marxism, and Marxism is inherently hostile to multiculturalism.
                            You big silly. There you go actually paying attention to Marxist theory and practice. Bad, bad Slick. If only you doused your brain in the rantings of the online right you would know that 'cultural Marxism' is the shibboleth that keeps on giving. It is literally anything & everything you want it to be. Just think of a thing you don't like and it is somehow connected to 'cultural Marxism'. Death, taxes, multiculturalism, acne, boy bands, snow, skinny jeans, sun....pretty much anything. Think on it long enough and it can be connected to anything you don't like. That is why some folk, including at least on on this thread, slip it in to virtually any discussion of any topic.

                            Of course, the chances of finding a right winger who has ever read more than a few pages of Habermas, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin or any of the Frankfurt School is about the same as finding a ham platter in an orthodox synagogue. In fact, even on the left people who have actually read much of the 'cultural Marxism' they allegedly adhere to are rare (when I was at Uni there was one guy in the PolSci department who understood this stuff, and the only crusade he was on was to get drunk - successfully). So, no danger anyone on the right might twig to the scam. Instead some helpful soul online will track down some idiot on the left somewhere who says....whatever...., label them 'cultural Marxists' and offer it as 'proof' of.....whatever. Of course, the fact that nobody actually reads this stuff is simply proof of how insidious it is....and so forth.

                            Like any good conspiracy theory there are a few facts lying around the place, but they have next to nothing to do with the claims made. There are certain phrases that are useful idiot/ideologue detectors - you can make snap judgements of those who use them seriously: 'Deep State'; New World Order; 'Lame Stream Media' (and derivations) etc. 'Cultural Marxism' is firmly on that list.

                            Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

                              The video covers that, was there something BP got wrong there?
                              BP was talking about the moral panic I was addressing the comments in the thread.

                              I have noticed that we often watch the same videos so I didn't feel I needed to comment on your original post as we probably are in agreement on most things. I have watched the video again and find nothing to add of any significance. If you want I can make some comments in anyway. I have some thoughts on complexity if that is of interests.

                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X