Uncategorized

A Clash of Victimologies

A recently column of mine at Alternative Right.

The worldview advanced by the “totalitarian humanist” strand of the Left tends to view human social life from the reductionist perspective of group conflict between “oppressed groups” and “oppressor groups.” But what happens when individual members of “oppressed groups” engage in predatory acts against each other?Are not the oppressed supposed to be acting in solidarity with one another? The incident I discuss in this article illustrates a number of cracks in that particular worldview. If the victim being discussed were not a sexual minority, would her plight be given any attention at all? What does that say about the actual hierarchy of privilege in our society? Of course, in a functional society of rational people, violent crime would simply be violent crime. Individuals would be responsible for their own actions regardless of their groups affiliations or collective identities. But we don’t live in a functional society of rational people.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

This incident has created an interesting dilemma for the Left. Which class of official victim groups are they going to side with on this one? The Battle of McDonald’s provides an illustration of why, I believe, the Left as it is presently constituted will fail in the long run, whatever its present level of institutional influence and however much it may be able to endure for a few more decades. The Left will eventually self-destruct because its core tenets are self-contradictory and cannot be sustained in real world social practice. The Left’s core constituent groups: racial minorities, immigrants, the LGBT community, feminists, “secular humanists,” the black and Hispanic underclass, wealthy Jews, etc. have interests that are ultimately incompatible with one another. As the Left becomes more powerful in the short run, as the realities imposed by mass immigration become more apparent, and the tensions between the official victim groups begin to surface to an ever greater extent, the coalition of the officially oppressed will begin to self-cannibalize. Each interest group within the victimology paradigm will begin to battle each other for the “More Oppressed Than Thou” championship title. This will be the death blow for PC. It’s only a matter of time.

Categories: Uncategorized

3 replies »

  1. “This incident has created an interesting dilemma for the Left.”

    It has created an interesting dilemma for the left if by the left you mean the collectivist guilt mongers who are most often referred to as the left, but if you are an individualist like myself than there is no dilemma at all. The fact is that certain individuals committed an assault against another individual and that is all there is to it from my point of view. Incidentally, in the comments, some moron pointed out the rap sheet of the victim, which at least 2/3 of those “crimes” were nonsense, maybe that idiot should read some of your articles and see what he thinks. I guess not all victims are created equal either, and I’m sure that in the society that cretins who post there envision, violence against the trans-gendered would be far more common than it is today. Maybe I am just out of step with everyone else with my antiquated liberal individualism, but if such nonsense is the future (either the authoritarian left or right) than I will be happy to be considered a reactionary in the dismal future awaiting us.

    Now I am not letting the left off the hook here as I have seen that they will judge people by their colour rather than their character all the time, just as you pointed out in the article. I recall back in either 07 or 08 reading about an incident where ten black males attacked a white male with bricks who had a black girlfriend. Now if that situation was reversed you can imagine how much outrage there would be, it would be all over major news channels, there would be protests etc. In this case, there were people in the comments section actually defending those goons because of the legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism in the past. In my mind, these people are the mirror images of Klansmen and other associated types.

  2. “Of course, in a functional society of rational people, violent crime would simply be violent crime. Individuals would be responsible for their own actions regardless of their group affiliations or collective identities. But we don’t live in a functional society of rational people.”

    Now that is one point where I am in agreement with one hundred percent. We certainly do not live in a functional society; rather we live in a gigantic mental asylum. When it comes to responsibility for one’s actions, that is something that is denied (whether explicitly or implicitly) by both the left and the right. I happen to believe that a good case could be made for that denial as the root of the paternalism that seeks to protect people from themselves. Take this criticism of libertarianism from Jonah Goldberg nationalreview.com/articles/204954/libertarian-lobe/jonah-goldberg that is chock full of ad hominems and other assorted nonsense, but not specifically his so-called “tried and true trick question” which he believes will reveal the inconsistencies within libertarianism. There are some good responses to this on LRC and the best imo is from Walter Block. My own answer would be that I would not stop any drunk idiot from jumping off a bridge because even without any invocation of libertarian principles, I don’t personally believe in stopping someone from suffering the consequences of their own stupidity and their also vermin in this world that I wish would remove themselves from the planet (hopefully before they breed). As a related example, this article mctracey.com/2011/04/05/teens-gone-wild/ via Reason about a truckload of underage (most of them were adults) drinkers busted at a party in Massachusetts. Now what interested me was the fact that the reason the area was cracking down was because some 17 year old died in a swamp after a night at one of these parties a few years earlier and apparently the reason for the crackdown is to protect the youngsters from themselves and the outrage directed at them was quite amazing in my view, I can’t really convey it here- you’d have to read it to get what I mean. Now the doublethink here of penalizing and protecting people, in other words shielding individuals from the consequences of their actions while making artificial consequences for their behaviors is not that uncommon today, but I think that it is one of the stupidest aspects of the contemporary legal system. In the interest of restoring responsibility, I would like to make my own modification of the Plainville electronic police sign mentioned in the article that said, “Zero tolerance, zero chances: You drink under 21, you lose.” My version of the sign (which should be put on tall buildings and bridges) would state “Zero tolerance, zero chances: You jump from 300 feet, you die.”

    Now the reason I went off on that issue is that as in the comments I posted to the “Judge “Let Me Go”” article earlier, I think that the denial of personal responsibility in the realm of people’s action towards themselves, if consistently applied, would also lead to absolving people of actions they commit against others. After all, if someone did something because they were a product of a broken home, bad parenting, and therefore they cannot have done otherwise, then it could be argue that really, there are not perpetrators and victims, but rather all are victims with the only perps being the dysfunctional makeup that some people are unfortunate to have been burdened with. In the case of these “hooliganettes” the very thing that you (and I’m not directing criticism toward you on this) and many on the right decry “[making] excuses for them, [attempting] to absolve them of responsibility for their actions, or [attributing] their legal status to racism” is not that crazy if you accept the of logic that I discussed in the last paragraph. As counterintuitive as it may seem, I think that the logic of a Jonah Goldberg, despite the fact that I am sure he would loudly protest this, would lead to the excusing of people’s behavior if he were to be consistent with his own beliefs, the thing that he chides libertarians for not being. To sum up, I don’t support the liberal politics of passing the blame onto others, but unlike others, I also believe that responsibility should extend to the real innate consequences of people’s actions as well, and given the fact that most people reject that, I think the liberals who absolve criminals of their responsibility are actually more consistent in their views.

  3. “It has created an interesting dilemma for the left if by the left you mean the collectivist guilt mongers who are most often referred to as the left, but if you are an individualist like myself than there is no dilemma at all. The fact is that certain individuals committed an assault against another individual and that is all there is to it from my point of view.”

    Exactly.

Leave a Reply