"Routine Jewish hypocrisy about "free speech." Note how Jews are included in a list of hypothetical objects of satire, but when they are actually mocked, the journalist does a complete 180 on freedom of speech, because Holocaust. For safety's sake, this sort of hypocrisy and dishonesty should be assumed to be present in all Jewish statements."
Funny when you suppose a world where the ideal has been reached and no aggression exists and you let a modern know how boring it might be. In the abstract they tend to agree that they don't mind a little spice in their life but of course in practice they aren't willing to pay the price for such an exotic flavor, instead relying on the...rape free, non-sexist/racist, 0% homophobic, Kosher dressing that always leaves them wanting more.
One is not an intentional victim by their own selves when they have nothing to do with creating the paradigm that they exist in that causes their victimization to begin with.
Understanding causality is crucial here.
How can one be responsible for the very environment that they randomly happened to be born and thrown into? An environment that they themselves have no control or influence over.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
People in control of the paradigm like this sort of reasoning because the individual becomes accountable for their entire lives while they themselves are left off the hook for everything where they can conveniently have no responsibility or accountability for anything at all including over others.
Make all problems individuals face internal ones where anything that has to do with exterior factors are left off the hook and ignored altogether.
The ability for self-control, while it too is based on causality, nevertheless, negates causality. Thus, self-control is a will to affirm responsibility for oneself. "Freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves. It is to preserve the distance which separates us from other men. To grow more indifferent to hardship, to severity, to privation, and even to life itself."Friedrich Nietzsche
And yet, no absolutes, or the absence of, means this negation can ever be complete. What is left but endurance, toleration, learning to differentiate, distinguish, distinguish the meaningless from the meaningful within our projection of objective.
Arrogance, is, here, the culprit of self-deceit. Nothing negates causality. One only makes one's self numb to it, and so more of a victim of its immutability.
Note in the quote the word "responsibility". This is not negation, dismissal; it is acceptance. The taking in upon one's self, the yay saying.
To forget, is not to escape what is forgotten. A momentary escape. To control is not to negate what is controlled, no more than controlling femininity is negating it. Judeo-Christian asceticism. The practice of denial, fleeing, into the desert of one's own making, what can never be escaped.
In Hellenism control means something else, and so does ascetic.
Or...the harmony between past/nature and projected future/ideal.
Same concept using different words.
It's also called harmony. To be true to your own nature/past, experienced as well-being. No external authority required.
Ya, harmony was the term I'm more accustomed with. Heraclitus spoke of this, stating harmony is the result of the appropriate tension of opposing forces. There is the popular bow example - "Look at a strung bow lying on the ground or leaning against a wall. No movement is visible. To the eyes it appears a static object, completely at rest. But in fact a continuous tug-of-war is going on within it, as will become evident if the string is now strong enough, or is allowed to perish. The bow will immediately take advantage, snap it and leap to straighten itself, thus showing that each half been putting forth effort all the time. The harmonia was a dynamic one of vigorous and contrary motions neutralized by equilibrium and so unapparent"---W.K.C Guthrie
There can be degrees of victimhood/lack of self care. Most people are not so well prepared, Not everyone has the luxury. People are victims of shitty luck of birth.
I combined the crux of your argument from all your comments into this quote.
One of the reasons why someone doesn't have the luxury, is unprepared, and lacking self-care (these are symptoms, not the cause) is because they have no lofty goal in life. They have no aspirations. They don't want to become more than they're. They just want to self-indulge - the grazing cow's life, which puts or keeps them in the same vulnerable position. One who is without aim, without a care in the world, will stagnate/atrophy. Anything to avoid pain/suffering. A slave to fear and lust. Consequently, no skills are developed. The fact that one participates in this world is already a sufficient reason to hold him/her responsible for every negative experience. How much more, then, is one held accountable for putting or keeping themselves in such vulnerable positions? In contrast, someone who does have a lofty goal, survival becomes a byproduct, a secondary motivator. Instead, the primary motivator becomes personal development - to become more than you're, and that doesn't mean sexual conquest either. A lofty goal requires a lot of resistance (pain/suffering) to overcome. You cannot have an aesthetically pleasing body without sculpting it through vigorous exercise and controlling eating habits.
The third kind, those who are primarily motivated by survival, while they too live the grazing cow's life, they, at least, have enough sense to try to take care of themselves so that they do have the luxury of adapting and are prepared.
Other people are creating those situations also.
I never said offenders are not responsible. I said that one is not a victim if someone else rapes him/her. The aggressor does not absolve responsibility. See reply above.
Exposure to chemicals is often NOT the result of one's own choices. Exposure to chemicals, however, can only partially be controlled.
Sure it is. Using all sorts of household chemicals and chemical toiletries is a choice, so is eating food sprayed with chemicals, eating and drinking unnatural-non-organic food/drinks that contains harmful ingredients, drinking unfiltered water, or drinking from plastic bottles, not living in a cleaner climate, living in a high densely populated area, etc.
And for kids, their diets are often not their choices.
Granted, kids under the age of reason are genuine victims. After that, they're responsible.
Last edited by lilynate on Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:26 pm; edited 10 times in total
Rule: Whenever some event affects you, the first accounting should seek responsibility in self. Whether positive or negative, the self is to be held responsible, before one proceeds to evaluate how others, otherness, participated in the outcome. Again, how otherness participated in the negative & positive outcome must be evaluated, objectively, not with the intent to flatter self or to absolve it of accountability.
If this is not done, or not done as objectively as possible, then the individual will either repeat the actions that resulted in a negative circumstance, or will be unable to repeat the steps that resulted in a positive outcome.
In modern Greece, and its economic woes, we can study how human weakness, stupidity, and victim psychology can be manipulated en masse. A culture detached from its proud inheritance, now fully Judeo-Christian/Marxist, so naive and gullible, and unable to accept accountability, that it is destined to repeat the mistakes that lead it to this pitiful condition. Criticizing them honestly will have them accuse you of hate, and if you are one of them, you will be accused of being a traitor.
Have we not seen a similar behavior on ILP, the microcosm of a modern Nihilistic Macrocosm? Have you not experienced similar events, from people in your immediate environment, displaying the same behavior? Will you see it in yourself, before it's too late?
The "Might is Right" Nihilistic inversion, corresponds to the belief that the world owes you consideration, preferential treatment, and that your subjective view, no matter how it relates to the objective real world, is no different than any other, but, more than this, it results in the naive predicament of struggling to change the world to accommodate you, rather than changing yourself, adapting, to the world you cannot change...and by world I do not mean the human world of interventions and artifices, but the world outside human memes, human constructs.
"Right is Might" means if you are right about the world, or to whatever degree you can achieve objectivity, or harmonize your subjectivity with the objective world, will determine the potential you will gain, the possibility, for dominating those who have not. It is this relationship of your subjectivity to objectivity which will offer you the potential to be "mighty" not in relation to world, but in relation to organisms, which would include the "world" of man, the inter-subjective artificial "reality" of manmade systems, memes. Such human constructs, as all living ordering, are ephemeral, and so what power, wisdom you find within them is also short-lived and short-sighted.
If you seek clarity beyond the immediate, wisdom as a mind living across time/spaces others cannot appreciate, if you seek clarity, to see the world as it is before you die, and not temporary pleasures and lifetime escapes, then harden your heart, and focus your mind, using your Will. What you do with the insights you gain, if you endure them, is up to you. What you choose to focus your awareness towards is your prerogative. What you value in yourself and wish to preserve, choosing with who you will identity, is,a gain, your choice.
The soft bully begins by thinking on your behalf and attempts to stuff his alleged victimhood in your mouth. Like he was doing you a favor of what He insists you wanted to do to him all along. Its a weakling's way of taming someone into submission. Aggressive passive.
Another soft bully pushes exaggerations at you, so that you are compelled to put yourself down to bring the facts up to a balance. An inflationary praise is a way of getting you to underrate yourself, so it balances the inflation. For eg., a person may tell you how extraordinary you are, at which you are compelled to put yourself down whether you like it or not, to say, "not really", or, "i am only so and so", or "I wish", etc. This too is the soft bully who in the guise of praise and flattery, makes you de-esteem yourself on your own, into submission.
The culture of victimhood doesn't really only entail 'victims' with the absurdity of their injuries and sufferings, but it also includes weak individuals resorting to such soft bullying. Prominent among the narcissistic kind who do not like having a bad image of themselves in their conscience, of out and out putting someone down directly.
"Depressive personality and depressive illness are examined from an evolutionary adaptationist standpoint. It is postulated that the depressive state evolved in relation to social competition, as an unconscious, involuntary losing strategy, enabling the individual to accept defeat in ritual agonistic encounters and to accommodate to what would otherwise be unacceptably low social rank.
This means that depression performed some function over the course of our evolution and that those of our ancestors who had the capacity to become depressed survived at the expense of those who did not.
Performance is limited in depression. There is impairment of perception, of execution and of the central processes which mediate between perception and execution, experienced as difficulty in making decisions (Radford et al., 1986). Even in mild depressions there is some impairment, particularly for tasks requiring initiative.
Impairment of performance is not incompatible with a biological function. Performance is impaired in sleep and hibernation; viewed out of the context of circadian and circannual change we might be sceptical of their adaptive value. It is in relation to social competition that depression can be seen to exercise a function (Price, 1967; Sloman, 1976; Gardner; 1982; Sloman et al., 1989; Gilbert, 1992). The result of competition is that winners and losers behave differently, and it may be that mood change is the mechanism that mediates this variation in behaviour.
Identification of depression as a component of a behavioural system which we share with other animals anchors our subject firmly to the basic disciplines of comparative ethology (the study of behaviour as it occurs in nature) and behavioural ecology (the analysis of behaviour in terms of function), thus supplementing the pioneering work of John Bowlby on attachment behaviour (Goldberg, 1991).
Recent work in behavioural ecology has been concerned with situations in which an animal utilises only one from a set of two or more alternative behavioural strategies (Krebs & Davies, 1987). Depression may be identified as a losing or de-escalating strategy and elevation of mood as a winning or escalating strategy.
Since adopting a losing strategy often implies forgoing resources which may contribute to reproduction, depression might also fall into the category of altruistic behaviour, which has been of interest in recent evolutionary theory (Hamilton, 1963; Krebs, 1987).
Finally, the mathematical analysis of animal contest behaviour requires a variable to express the animal's knowledge of its own fighting capacity. This animal self-concept has been termed "resource-holding potential' (RHP) and may be the evolutionary primordium of human self-esteem (Parker, 1974; Wenegrat, 1984; Archer, 1988). RHP determines whether an animal escalates a confrontation and attacks, or de-escalates and adopts the 'involuntary subordinate strategy', which we think may be the primordium of depressive states. Thus we are able to use the tools of behavioural ecology in the analysis of the mutual interaction of self-esteem and mood change, which permeates much of psychiatric practice.
The social competition hypothesis of depression is that human beings share with their more primitive ancestors a mechanism for yielding in competitive situations. This 'involuntary subordinate strategy' has three main functions: (a) an executive function which prevents the individual from attempting to make a 'come-back' by inhibiting aggressive behaviour to rivals and superiors (but not to dependants) and by creating a subjective sense of incapacity; (b) a communicative function which signals 'no threat' to rivals and 'out of action' to any kin or supporters who might wish to push the individual back into the arena to fight on their behalf; and (c) a facilitative function which puts the individual into a 'giving up' state of mind which encourages acceptance of the outcome of competition and promotes behaviour which expresses voluntary yielding. This leads to reconciliation and the termination of whatever conflict triggered the 'involuntary subordinate strategy'. But if voluntary yielding is blocked for any reason, the involuntary subordinate strategy may become intense and prolonged and may be recognised as depressive illness.
We suggest that depression is a component of the behavioural strategy evolved for the role of non territory owner and low ranker.
We would expect to find depression manifesting in the form of both illness and personality, reflecting the fact that some individuals achieve ownership and/or high rank and then lose it, whereas others have never achieved these objectives in the first place.
A social hierarchy performs two different functions. First, it regulates the transfer of power and of breeding opportunities from one generation to the next. Second, it stratifies each generation in terms of power and breeding opportunities, and it is this second function which mediates sexual selection.
The simplest hierarchy is the asymmetrical two-person relationship. There are many ways of negotiating the one-down position in such a relationship (Price, 1988, 1992a) and these may be associated with perceptual and cognitive distortion in the one-down member. There may be adulation in which the status of the one-up member is magnified, and there is depression in which the status of the one-down member is diminished. Both ensure a stable complementarity of the relationship and avoid the disruptive 'arms race' of symmetrical schismogenesis (Bateson, 1972). Unlike adulation, the depressive mechanism allows for a switch in one-upness, when chronic depression in the formerly one- down member may be replaced by an acute depression in the formerly one-up member (Price, 1991). The association of depression with loss of social rank in animals has been discussed for birds (Price & Sloman, 1987), monkeys (Price, 1989) and lizards (Price, 1992b).
Ritual agonistic behaviour is the social interaction which produces these role asymmetries in the majority of vertebrate species. An encounter between competitors is followed by ritualised fighting. The ritualisation reduces the physical risk to both parties. The losing behaviour is as ritualised as the fighting. Depression can be seen as a ritual form of losing behaviour producing temporary psychological incapacity which signals submission to the winner but preserves the loser without physical damage. It performs the function which death performs in unritualised fighting, and which the referee performs in culturally ritualised competition.
Agonistic behaviour can be described in terms of a self-concept called resource- holding potential (RHP) (Parker, 1974, 1984). RHP is an estimate of fighting capacity by both the individual and others. Size, strength, skill, previous success, weapons and allies all indicate increased fighting capacity. The output from a high self-perception of RHP is threat or attack.
All the phenomena of ritual agonistic behaviour can be described in terms of signals of either absolute or relative RHP (Price, 1988). Ritual agonistic behaviour can then be conceptualised as an RHP management system which produces a rank order of individuals according to differences in RHP.
Self-esteem is the nearest we can get to RHP in human terms, and our hypothesis is that self-esteem evolved out of RHP. This would explain two aspects of self-esteem which would seem to be puzzling: its global nature and the great variation in self-esteem in the population (Lancet, 1988); both these features are essential to the function of RHP. Re-phrasing our hypothesis in terms of RHP, we can state that depression in its chronic form is a function of low RHP, and in its acute form a function of falling RHP. If we now substitute self-esteem for RHP, and also adopt the current ethological practice of regarding behavioural variation as alternative strategies, we can formulate depression as a low self-esteem strategy.
It may be asked how such a system can evolve, when all the advantage seems to be on the side of the high self-esteem strategy. In fact the advantages of the two strategies are likely to be equalised by negative frequency-dependent selection, as has been shown by Maynard-Smith (1982), using what is known as evolutionary game theory. He calls the high self-esteem strategy a 'hawk' strategy, which is characterised by escalation of agonistic encounters, and the low self-esteem strategy a 'dove' strategy, which is characterised by de- escalation. He has demonstrated in his evolutionary model that, given certain conditions, a pure hawk strategy is not 'evolutionarily stable', in that it can be infiltrated by a mixed hawk/dove strategy. In this model it is assumed that in encounters between hawk and dove the hawk has the higher pay-off, in terms of survival and reproduction; but when hawk meets hawk, the pay-off is lower because of the risk of escalation to unritualised combat with consequent serious injury or death. Yielding ensures the loser survives.
The low self-esteem strategy can be seen as a form of altruistic behaviour which promotes the survival and reproduction of close relatives and so raises 'inclusive fitness' (Hamilton, 1963; Krebs, 1987). In fact, an alternative term for the low self-esteem strategy might be 'kin-helper strategy', contrasting with the 'self-helper' high-esteem strategy.
We have presented the yielding hypothesis in terms of ritual agonistic behaviour, suggesting that the mechanisms of depression evolved when ritual agonistic behaviour was the principal form of social competition underlying sexual selection, as it is in most vertebrate species today. However, ritual agonistic behaviour is not the main form of human social competition. As pointed out by Barkow (1989) and by Gilbert (1992), competition by attraction has largely replaced competition by intimidation, and is the main form of competition seen in primitive tribes by anthropologists. In order to achieve the prestige which guarantees reproductive success (usually the possession of more than one wife in the case of males, and marriage of children to high-ranking partners in the case of females), individuals have to make themselves attractive to others, either to their peers or to particular patrons, and it is the latter who make the decisions which determine the differential allocation of rank.
Agonistic behaviour and social asymmetries have been ascribed to cultural factors, or to the carry-over into adult life of the parent-child asymmetry and the punishment which is a common component of child-rearing. Such was the view of Freud, who did not have the benefit of the ethological descriptions of agonistic behaviour and social asymmetry in such a wide variety of vertebrate species, including many reptiles who have no parent-offspring contact at all. Thus it was natural for him to conceptualise the neuroses associated with adult power struggles in terms of unresolved nursery conflicts, a view which was corrected by neo-Freudians such as Sullivan and Horney (Birnbach, 1962); but even the latter saw adult conflict in cultural terms, and did not conceive that mankind might share with animals a phylogenetically old mechanism for creating social asymmetry between previously equal adults.
The depressive is not only pessimistic about the future, but has a distorted view of the past in which former rank, ownership and success seem to the patient like a sham, and, therefore, not to be regained.
Apart from ownership and RHP, the only variable which is important in the mathematical analysis of agonistic behaviour is 'resource value', which expresses the value of whatever is being fought about (Parker, 1984). The lower the resource value to a contestant, the more likely he is to yield (flee or submit) rather than to attack. In depression there is a generalised reduction in the perceived value and significance of all goals and incentives, which is usually described as loss of interest. The depressive loss of interest favours de-escalation of conflict. If the resource under consideration is the general one of social rank and success, then reduction in resource value is synonymous with loss of pride and ambition.
Ethological observations of depressed patients show that active (spontaneous, person-oriented) submission such as flattery is reduced, but passive submission such as looking down is increased (T. Schelde, personal communication, 1993), which highlights the difference between the 'involuntary subordinate strategy' underlying depression and the voluntary subordinate behaviour which may pre-empt or replace it.
Our hypothesis is consistent with the fact that depression is more common, more severe and more prolonged in later life, for the most important acts of yielding are required when one generation is giving way to the next. We have dealt elsewhere with the fact that depression tends to follow 'exit' events such as bereavement, whereas it might be expected that yielding would more often be required following the entry of new members to the group (Price, 1988).
We argue that social rank is so dependent on the support of others that loss of significant others has become the main predictor of loss of rank. The dependence of rank on support from kin and other allies is a widespread characteristic of non- human primates (De Waal & Harcourt, 1992), suggesting that it may have applied to the simian and human common ancestor some 40 million years ago, allowing sufficient evolutionary time for close interconnections to develop between the brain mechanisms subserving agonistic and affiliative behaviour.
The possibility that depression can be an adaptive response to adverse external conditions has at least a five-decade history. In 1936 Lewis suggested that depression is a way of eliciting help from others. The idea that depression is an alternative response to the intolerability of low social status has been a central theme in the work of Price (1967), Sloman (1976), and their colleagues. Engle and Schmale (1972; Engle, 1980) postulated that depression conserves energy and functions as a homeostatic regulatory process. Klerman (1974) identified several possible adaptive functions of depression, including its often positive social communication effects. Also, Gut (1989) has argued that coping with depression often results in individuals becoming more psychologically healthy and self-aware. Much of this history has been reviewed by Gilbert (1989).
Our hypothesis that depression evolved out of mechanisms mediating ranking behaviour throws a new light on the extensive work which has been carried out on the expression of hostility in depression, and which has produced very conflicting results (Riley et al., 1989). Some workers have found that depressed patients express more anger than controls (Fava et al., 1993), and this might seem to conflict with our idea that depression functions to inhibit aggression.
In fact, our hypothesis states that only hostility to equal- and higher-ranking people is inhibited, whereas hostility expressed to lower-ranking people is often increased; and it is our clinical impression that hostility in depression is usually unexpressed or 'taken out on' the furniture, or expressed to subordinate spouses or children. No published study to date has considered whether the hostility is felt or expressed to a higher-ranking or a lower-ranking person. Yet from an ethological perspective, expressing hostility up a hierarchy is a very different matter from expressing it downwards.
The 'yielding' hypothesis helps the physician to explore the patient's situation, identify any conflictual relationships and assess the reasons for nonresolution of any agonistic interaction. There are five options:
(a) The conflict may be resolved by negotiation and compromise. Here we are talking in terms of reconciliation, which implies penitence, atonement, forgiveness and other forms of negotiation.
(b) The patient may be helped to win the conflict. This applies particularly to patients who are insufficiently self-assertive.
(c) The patient may be assisted to substitute voluntary yielding in the form of conscious submission for the involuntary and unconscious yielding of depression.
(d) The patient may be enabled to leave the arena. This may involve physical separation from the adversarial person and certainly involves mental detachment.
(e) Help may come from reducing the patient's assessment of the value of the resource being competed for. Aspirations may be excessive or too narrow, the patient having 'all his eggs in one basket'. These are concerns common to psychotherapy, philosophy and religion." [The Mal-adapted Mind]
"Apart from ownership and RHP, the only variable which is important in the mathematical analysis of agonistic behaviour is 'resource value', which expresses the value of whatever is being fought about (Parker, 1984). The lower the resource value to a contestant, the more likely he is to yield (flee or submit) rather than to attack. In depression there is a generalised reduction in the perceived value and significance of all goals and incentives, which is usually described as loss of interest. Depression functions as a homeostatic regulatory process. Gut (1989) has argued that coping with depression often results in individuals becoming more psychologically healthy and self-aware." [The Mal-adapted Mind]
I think it is clear in the excerpt provided, there was no black/white segregation of depressives as negative and aggresives as positive.
Its an apt excerpt to place in the Victims thread, for, those who reduce the value of reality - life, because They cannot compete, and promote a resignatory "accept things as they come" is how nihilistic depressives aggressively operate, and use this as a coping strategy to survive today.
Depression is key in alerting to required adjustments to the larger reality, and May thereby promote more self/awareness, or as said, may induce them to lower the resource value - life and self-hatred.
The deficient-self-worth slander life itself, and in turn become excessive idealists/narcissists in the unhealthy sense.
Knowing one's genetic limits and Resigning to one's genetic limits are two different things. The Master is a master, because he strives in affirmation of all odds, and even desires to be at this disadvantage, beyond pain/pleasure.
In the other scenario too, the depressive is so, because he hates change, the shifts of power that topple him down from his former superior position and the corresponding social status that he clings to. The Master type is not about conservation; it takes rise and fall as part of the organic cycle. Self-clinging is not self-worth.
The criterion is always - 'how much truth can you dare?' -… the Strength, for open experiments, Tempered by an aesthetics of when and where to be content [maculine], and discontent [feminine]. Without a balance in the two, one either ends up bleeding and whining all the time - nothing satiates, and lust becomes unrelieving, ugly, or, one ends up too smug and satisfied in one's satisfactions, never venturing out, never seeking out more, equally ugly…
To want to eat more than one can digest, and to waste food untouched are both bad manners.
In continuation with the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Voracity of Venus - petting, pampering, etc., and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Marion-worship in BDSM, some excerpts on Feminization via feline Infantilism and the Victim Industry;
the author is a pan-psychist and experientialist, but there are interesting excerpts on his [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
"To Summon the Great Mom": Human Sycophancy, Infant Conformity, and the Earliest Beauty Contest.
"…there were advantages for survival of newborns who had certain characteristics. Since newborns were increasingly seen as handicaps in the survival competition we created among ourselves, those that had traits fitting with the crazed perceptions of the fully growns were selected for survival increasingly. So traits in helpless newborns that made them either seem less burdensome or more appealing were selected for and increasingly prevalent. Babies had better smile, so to speak."
"The socialization process in infancy was crucial in that process of transforming from someone attendant to Grace to someone beholden to “civilized” others. It was incumbent upon newborns to succeed in their earliest and deadliest “beauty contest."
"…adult conformity and sycophancy has roots in the newborn’s needs to win its congeniality contest, or else."
"Thus, as infants, we learn to smile, point, cry, screech, and babble with finesse. Our early attempts are unplanned, automatic, crude, and for the most part, ineffectual … like the early attempts of any future virtuoso. But smiling, we find, brings forth the Great Mom’s countenance. We realize eventually we have the power to summon the “gods.” We reach out for an object and cannot get to it. But still we try, and sooner or later, we find it drifts into our hand. For again, there has been an intercession from the Great Mom, this time brought about through the minute extension of a finger — pointing."
"Very often, though not always, this wailing brought forth the goddess, the Great Mother, and most of the time things were set right. This form of baby praying, this self-flagellation for the purpose of being blessed by the goddess, we put more energy into so as to make it work better. So we cried until we were heard."
"Being ever more successful at summoning the Great Mom, we found ourselves often in her presence. Simply the appearance of her face, the divine visage, brought forth waves of peace and contentment. Everything would be set right. But the Great Mother was not always directable in the way one wanted. We found that to the degree that we could interact with that Great Being and communicate with that face, we could achieve success. So we watched and learned from that face what was desirable, what was pleasing, and what actions of ours brought forth pleasantness — “rained down” from on high — and what brought forth nothing … or pain."
"…sometimes what worked was mysterious, “superstitious,” totally having no or an opposite relation to the result. And this varied with the caregiver. So, for one caregiver, crying brought about a changing of diapers and a welcome visitation from the goddess. For another, crying while needing changing resulted in one being isolated in a dark place and ignored. And the longer one cried, the longer one was isolated."
"One might learn, paradoxically, that indirect expressions or non-expressions — keeping silent about — what was going on inside oneself … what was needed and wanted … was the best strategy for having a chance at having them addressed and satisfied … however randomly or haphazardly that might happen. Such a person, later in life, would become the silent suffering type or the aloof personality…."
"…among all planetmates, we developed elaborate signal systems and symbolic actions-at-a-distance — involving complex movements and sounds — which would later become ritual and language…."
"Elaborate and complex, finely tuned, facial movements and facial adoptions — *expressions*, we call them — evolved to achieve exactly that “action-at-a-distance” effect one desired."
"While either of these might use this ability to see deeply into another — by means of the complex and cultivated understandings that arise and accumulate beginning in infancy and throughout life — for the purpose of connection, union, or love, with another; the same ability might be used by a card shark to notice our "tells" and to take all our money. "Clearly the most successful salespeople make use of it that way.""
"Honor cultures primarily utilize idealized notions of personal honor and reputation as a basis for solving social conflict. They tend to fight over social defection and present with high sensitivity and high violence. Dignity cultures rely upon law and order combined with an elevation of individual dignity and mutual respect to seek remediation for social problems. They tend to present with a tendency to ignore slights, psychological robustness, and self-restraint, and they are largely nonviolent. Victimhood cultures outsource their problems to institutional authorities and partisan mobs to address social conflict (note: this is the core abuse of the social part of social justice), and they exploit the natural moral currency of victimhood to do it. These operate by reporting slights and are highly sensitive and, rather than being violent in response to that sensitivity, are censorious as a result."
When one is supposed to be the eternal victims, the always wronged, then when they experience success they must scapegoat their own responsibility onto someone else. This is where you find successful people whom are pedophiles, human and child sacrificers and abusers. When one cannot reconcile their own status as an eternal victim with their own power - they must create a victim by their own hands.
The powerless reminds them of their own lack of victimhood.
The escalation of their power escalates the extreme degree to which they must scapegoat another. It is through this sacrificing of another that they clean their own conscience. The blameless banker must sacrifice children where a town of common men might satisfy themselves with a goat. The greater the sacrificial injustice, the greater their redemption.
It is the strength of the European man to bear full responsibility for all they have done or caused directly or indirectly. Scapegoating white men for the world's problems, taking advantage of their strength, could soon be a well run dry. European men are the most hated for this strength. This is also why European people's are the most sought after for their rituals - because of this spirit. The Jews have instructed the Hellenic people on what their role should be in the world, by the demonstration of scapegoating Jesus.
If you wish to profit off the culture of a people, learn their greatest devils and then claim you were a victim of it. Subsequently request assistance or offer them the ability to rectify the damage (this will be easy, because they would hate the subject in question, they get to feel good, righteous, heroic and actively productive for their own sake at the same time). Any that cannot will feel apologetic, reinforcing to others the importance of it. Any who accuse you of lying, you may vilify as insensitive or allied with who you claim victimized you.
Now we see the greatest evil to white people, their own genocide, is taken advantage of.
The nihilistic acceptance of all claims to victimhood comes inextricably paired with the nihilistic dismissal of all claims to heroism.
[Politicized] Climate Science [Alarmism] is used to suppress white birth rates by saying it is 'racist' to reproduce. I'm not joking. It's to prevent white men from having any claim to being any sort of hero for anything or cause but their own genocide, ever. The entire narrative is spun so the white man doesn't make himself healthy or have an avenue for exposing their lies.
@User1 This is why Climate Change is promoted tbh, I've heard many SWPLs justify never having children with "we have to save the environment from overpopulation" and "what's the point in having children when the world will melt/drown from global warming in a few decades anyway?" They don't really believe it though, it's just that they need a smart sounding excuse to justify their failures and lack of ambition.