Thursday, March 30, 2006

Victimology: Marxism is Mainstream

Are the students today more conservative? asks Maxed Out Mama. Read the answer by Pedro The Quietest here.
Mama also points us to Sigmund, Carl and Fred where popular ideology finds its roots. Then Dr. Sanity talks about the Marxist Dialectic.

Basically, the conclusion, to simplify points to an argument I've made before and Dr. Santy makes clear here:

In fact, you will notice that for the most part, there are only two templates that exist for journalism on the U.S. military: (1) they are the poor helpless victims of an oppressive military system and the current political administration which horribly abuses them; OR, (2) they are the brutal, savage, sadistic psychopaths that enjoy inflicting death and misery and who are encouraged to do so by the oppressive military system and the current political administration.

Do you notice something about those two templates? They just happen to coincide with the marxist view of the world, where you are either one of the "oppressed" victims or one of the brutal "oppressors". Apparently that is the only context in which journalism is taught these days.

Caught up in the hidden marxist agenda of their postmodern rhetoric (with which they hope to "make the world a better", the graduates of these journalism schools march in lockstep with the other "oppressed" people of the world, including the poor victimized terrorists and all the helpless and persecuted dictators and tyrants who also only want to make the world a better place (with them in charge, of course).

Even though politically conservative moreseo than liberal for quite some time, being raised American these days imbues a person with certain beliefs that we often fail to acknowledge because we are so conditioned in the ideology. I have been no exception.

What do I mean? I was schooled in victimology as a youth and so were you, most likely.

The child of two misunderstood underdogs, language and action revealed our victim mentality even if unconsciously: include so and so or else they will feel bad, go on a date with someone you don't want to because a boy's emotional state is very fragile, tears got you what you wanted--plain speaking never did, manipulation was de rigeur, passive-aggression the only means of expressing differences, etc.

The take-home message: you are not responsible for you, someone else made you feel or behave that way.

This message pours every day, unchecked, into heads all over the U.S. It is nurtured in public school where "fairness" supercedes "greatness". It is reinforced by Oprah, inadvertantly, when the down-trodden and used and abused are showcased daily. It comes into full bloom at college where disgruntled theorists (their ideas are rarely tested in the real world) expound about racism, ageism, sexism, VICTIM-ism.

What is wrong with this? It isn't true. And even if you have been victimized, what good is there in staying there? Good grief! The greatest achievers in our world do not keep a list of wrongs with them to pull out at the first bump in the road. But it seems to me that the leaders in the U.S. are less interest in creating achievers and more interested in achieving fairness, equalness and comfort for the masses. This is also known as Socialism. We can see the results in France where young people are throwing a very public fit about jobs-for-life.

A person of import in my life and I argued the other day about Victimology. A social worker immersed in the victim culture, she worked with women abuse victims, getting them to safe houses, "saving them".

"They aren't victims," I said. "Their children are victims. Their children are stuck between two moronic parents--one playing the role of the predator, the other playing the role of prey, both getting something out of it while the children suffer."

"Yes, but these women, they are just worn down after so much time," she said. "They didn't know what kind of person he was."

"I dont' believe that for a minute," I say. "They saw all kinds of signs and proceed willfully to ignore them. Family pleads with these ladies. Friends share their fears. And the lady defends the indefensible and then claims shock when she's on the receiving end of a hay-maker. Bull."

She couldn't really argue with this, of course, because her own experience now bore this out. But holding these women responsible, not for being beat up, but for choosing an unstable man likely to direct his considerable anger at her, finally-- holding these women responsible for that choice, meant holding other people responsible for their choices. It means holding ourselves responsible for our choices.

I'm not suggesting that sexism, racism, ageism, name your-ism, is okay or good or that people are responsible for being the brunt of these -isms. But they are responsible to how they respond. They can take in the words and actions or they can choose differently and act differently.

The truth is that we all label, judge and even condemn people for irrational reasons. We all act at times anti-socially, do mean things to helpless people--even if unintentionally, and we all can be cruel and neglectful. That does not excuse this behavior. Hopefully we repent, make the wrong right and never do it again. Or, if bad enough, we go to jail and do our time and get out convinced that the consequences of being a stupid-head outweighs the pleasures of being a stupid-head. Or not.

There is a scale of goodness and badness. Some of us are great parents and horrible employees. Some of us are diligent tax payers but neglect our spouses. Most of us try to do better, be better. Through our religion or other belief system, we repent (change) and try to be what God wants for our life. That doesn't mean that there is no objective right or wrong, there is and we are all somewhere along the good-bad continuum.

A staunch Victimologist though, wants to separate the world: fat and skinny. Fat people are lazy, undisciplined and stupid and never have sex. Skinny people are hard-working, disciplined, smart and enjoy block-buster sex lives. Mean and nice. Conservatives are harsh, selfish, rich and mean. Liberals are kind, giving, moderate to poor and nice. Good and bad. Men are borish, brutish, aggressive and abusive. Women are gentle, protective, passive and innocent. Black and white and brown. Black people are open-minded, welfare recipients with lots of children. Whites are racist, tax-paying people with one kid. Brown people have good families, work hard, and live thirty to a house. Rich and poor. Rich people have everything given to them, are stingy, and greedy. Poor people work hard for nothing, are generous and share what they have.

You name it, there is a category. The categories are cast in moral tones. In fact, Victimology survives on the us and them dogma. Dogma, doctrine, beliefs. Insiders and outsiders. Us and them. Oppressors and the oppressed.

No one makes a choice. No one is in charge of those decisions. No one is responsible (response-able). Everyone at someone's mercy. Life is a food chain. The haves and have nots. The weak get vanquished by natural selection. It's a dog-eat-dog world. Eat or be eaten.

While this worldview serves our sanctimonious self-righteousness--as a victim I am beyond reproach--it is limiting and damaging, mostly to ourselves. Locked in a prison of our own making, our beliefs hold us in long after we have been victimized by a robber, thief, abuser, cheater, scumbag. Victimology, while satisfying in the short term, leaves a bitter aftertaste.

No comments: