Are there any philosophers/ideologies that encourage victim mindsets or blaming others for their problems? I'm working on a story and one of the cities is built around this ideology I'm looking for as a way to control its people (thinking is dangerous, it's ok to submit our higher authority because you're weak, etc.) The reason I want an underlying philosophy is so the reasoning of the leaders is deeper than 'spooky scary government is out to get you', and I want to know the major reasons why that philosophy should be implemented.
>Are there any philosophers/ideologies that encourage victim mindsets or blaming others for their problems
Early Christianity was literally victim worship and about blaming the Jews and Romans for everything bad in the world. Saint Augestine blamed earth quake's on Roman Paganism.
Look around at modern politics or philosophy and throw a rock.
>Blaming all of society's ills on a small group of people (blacks/jews/mexicans/muslims.)
>Blaming all of society's ills on external forces (America, China, OPEC, Russia, Iran, Israel, etc.)
>Blaming society's ills on an entire class of people (poor people, rich people, indifferent middle class)
Ego defines the way most people look at the world. We're all subconsciously looking for scenarios that set us up as downtrodden heroes held back by a great daunting evil.
Really? Communism? You're so resistance to understanding what he meant by slave morality that you think it had to do with communism?
Like how Americans start blaming the victim after they lose a war?
Women are actually oppressed in America though. They're forced to permanent sexual objects
/Pol/ doesn't actually read Nietzsche. It just acts like it does.
If they actually did they'd realize he's talking about them
>Like how Americans start blaming the victim after they lose a war?
lol what are you even talking about
>Women are actually oppressed in America though. They're forced to permanent sexual objects
>Be Christian in 58 AD
>Guy I worship was killed by people he was trying to save
>Be persecuted by Romans
>All of a sudden a thought
>MFW the Jews will be waiting forever for the guy that they killed
The modern anti-semetism of Christianity is just a hold over from the 1st generation Christians's hatred of the Jews.
Remember that the first generation of Christians were all Jews, their new strange sect was rejected by their community, their bad theology was laughed out of the temples (the amount of times Gospel writers either fail or outright lie about Old Testament content is astronomical). And so Paul comes along and says "Well we don't need Jews anyway, let's start eating pork and preach to the Goyim. Guess what dumb Jews, we don't even like you in fact the Goyim are now God's chosen people! What do you think of that. Also your God hates you because you killed him!"
2,000 years later the butt-hurt is still going strong.
Dude I'm not Jewish. Although thanks for fucking proving my point that early Christianity was just a gigantic sense of victim-hood towards Judaism
"The Jews killed our God!"
"The Jews are insulting my religion on the internet"
For fuck sakes you guys are positively AFRAID of Jews. Christians can't even discuss Judaism without collapsing into incoherent babbling.
>The modern anti-semitism of Christianity is just a hold over from the 1st generation Christian's hatred of the Jews.
Read a book called, "Jesus In The Talmud" and see that it is not so one sided as your attempt to bait /pol/tards would seem to suggest.
I know your post is bait because of the misrepresentation of the early teachers in Christianity. The practice of circumcision, among other things, was prevalent in the early Christian community until an event happened that some scholars see as the first Ecumenical council. The early Christian teachers, in deferring to people who actually saw Christ and heard Him teach firsthand, came to the decision that Christianity was not Judaism and there was no need for circumcision or the more physical stipulations of the Mosaical Law.
The "butthurt" is only still going strong because the Judaization of Christianity is still an ongoing debate, even though it was the first debate. Modern evangelical Protestants try to import all kinds of blasphemy into the faith, most notably Haggee. They misrepresent verses from Genesis about the Covenant, while ignoring the Biblical commentary on those verses in Galatians 3.
I don't know why we still have to talk about this, seeing as how it was a debate that was addressed by first generation of Christian teachers.
They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause defilement by seminal emission so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with him.... It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux. This is obvious!
Avodah Zarah 36b-37a
R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; [if a niddah] she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a person afflicted with gonorrhoea].
said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.'...
I'm not Jewish yeah
And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null.1 [HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID,] PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW.
All Israelites will have a part in the future world... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell.
Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha
Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.
>The early Christian teachers, in deferring to people who actually saw Christ and heard Him teach firsthand, came to the decision that Christianity was not Judaism
It's more accurate to say that the early Christians decided the religion was not Judaism. What Jesus did or did not say is pretty much historically irrelevant, Jesus got turned into a mouth piece that validates new theology made by new religious leaders. It's obvious from the contradictions that the Jesus of the bible is not the historical Jesus but a composite figure, part historical, part myth, and part what the priest want you to believe.
>The practice of circumcision, among other things, was prevalent in the early Christian community
I already addressed this. It was previlant until people like Paul started moving the religion away from Judaism and towards the Goyim.
What's your point? What we call pedastry was a normal part of sexuality in the past, women were wed an extremely young age and it was a completely different world. Religions evolve with the time and to my knowledge Judaism no longer supports this type of stuff. What you quoted is a Rabbi trying to discuss a way of life that no longer exists so of course it sounds strange. Are you mentally retarded or have you not figured that social customs are not fixed?
If you want to talk about pedophilia in religion that's Catholicism and Islam.
Like I've said I'm not Jewish, you just have that paranoia of Judaism that was one of the foundation forces of Christianity.
Also dude. Jesus was the original didn do nuffin. Christianity too dinduism to a fucking religion. The entire religion fucking culminates in a story where a perfectly good boy ends up in court for a crime he didn't commit and is killed by the evil authority. Christianity is literally the seed of things like modern SJW because it has conditioned society to associate oppressed victims with divinity. This ultimately why I think the Romans and Jews recognized Christianity as cancer.
Basically every ideology except a few forms of fascism use persecution complexes when necessary because it's an easy, powerful way of rallying a base of people and convincing them that their very lives/jobs/whatever is at stake. Look at the current populism wave in the west; all their appeals are to the common man being shut out of politics by the PC boogeyman and being shut out of jobs by the globalism boogeyman
I do not believe anything in Gnostic texts, lost "gospels", or the Qaraite (aka Sadducee rapebabies) lies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. DSS are not canonical and are not fit for creation of doctrine. Textus Receptus is Bestus Receptus, and 1611 best year of my life, to be completely honest family.
I'm not Catholic, so I don't give two rosary beads what those cracker-eating, wine-sipping, candle-lighting robed virgins called priests say. The Nicene Creed is the best and only creed, and the 1689 Baptist Confession is the founding document of my denomination.
You can tip your yarmulke at me and I can tip my mitre at you, and we will never come to the same conclusion, but I want you to know I value your opinion and appreciate the conversation. Its good for both of us.
With that being said, I want to make the claim that the Jesus of the gospels moved the faith away from (Rabbinic) Judaism. In Luke 14, beginning in verse 16 is a parable about a rich man who had a party. He invited his friends, none of which wanted to come. Then he told his servants to go out to the street and get anybody who wanted to eat and bring them. Jesus then said in verse 24, "For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper." The supper in which Jesus was referring to outside of the parable was the last supper, or communion, or the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, which is the last cup of the Passover, the cup of the consecration of God's wrath.
I doubt you'll even read this, as I had a class in between you replying and me writing this now.
Judaism alternates between persecution and being the persecuted.
There's no real name for it, but SJWism relies heavily on the notion of being persecuted (The Progressive stack is basically a numeral evaluation of how "oppressed" you are).
>Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights—
>/Pol/ doesn't actually read Nietzsche. It just acts like it does.
It's hilarious watching them trying to use the word Ubermench and them showing that they have no fucking clue Nietzsche meant be word.
From what I understand of Christianity (separating it from the old Testament) is that it is still an introspective style of philosophy - Judge not, love your neighbor, don't covet your neighbor or his things, etc. It's focused mainly on improving yourself and not letting the influences of others affect you. What humans have interpreted [read: twisted] of the words of Jesus may have developed into certain types of extreme, reactionary versions of the religion, but at its core it's an introspective philosophy.
What I know of Judaism from what I've read of the old testament is closer to "oy vey, we better not anger the sky man by doing things we deem bad, lest he grow our foreskins back." There is a strong tinge of victimization in the religion, but it doesn't seem to go much farther than acknowledging they are oppressed. They don't seem to be going the next step and begin rationalizing their oppression to the point where it becomes their complete identity and they start encouraging others to do the same. We often perceive that to be the Jewish Identity, but as far as I know, there isn't any text that goes into explaining why that should be so.
This is kind of what I'm looking for, but as far as I know there's far too much information that goes ideologically all over the place for it to for one concise ideology. And as far as Feminism goes, I can see where this fits into what I'm looking for, but I could never see this being implemented on a large scale. There are far too many parts of Feminism that contradict itself, so much so that even the uneducated masses would wake up and say 'Something about this is fucky'.
From what I remember of The Communist Manifesto, it was mostly about the rights of workers and their relationship with the bourgeoisie. It went into detail about why the mind of the bourgeoisie was destructive and cancerous, but didn't go in depth to why it was wrong.
I haven't read any Nietzsche. I'll see if he's got what I'm looking for.
Any modern day populist/fascist texts I can research to check it out? The former would be fantastic because I see a significant amount of victimization in popular PC culture, but I can't think of a scholar who's arguing that it's correct and should continue for the good of mankind as a whole.
>>Blaming all of society's ills on a small group of people (blacks/jews/mexicans/muslims.)
Yeah, no one blames "White people," "rich White people," "rich White men," or "The Patriarchy" for their problems.
>I'm not saying PC culture is good, but that the threat is overblown and populist leaders (Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Orban, Putin, etc) use it as a boogeyman to gain popularity
Those people don't blame minorities, esp. Putin, wtf?
Jesus dude, really? Feminism a forty year old idea that has changed wildly and is just one of hundreds of thousands if not millions of ideologies which are hypocritical. Every social movement is hypocritical given enough followers.
>every ideology except a few forms of fascism use persecution complexes
Is there any form of fascism immune to the persecution complex?
I thought then entire idea was rallying the common people back to traditional values and blaming liberalism and "muh degeneracy" for all their problems.
I've seen a few fascists who revel in the fact that they're screwing people over, so I can't imagine they have much room for sentiment. Basically 'the strong shall rule' as an entire philosophy
>They use the idea that the intelligentsia is too PC and therefore keeps the common man out of politics
Wrong how? FN just got blocked from election via Socialist-Republican alliance.
Has it occurred to any of you people "the problem" for nationalists IS the ethnic replacement of their nations, and NOT "these economic problems, which are caused by immigrants."
>ITT: People who have never read a single Feminist text while posting on a humanities board.
>what is slave morality
>Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment—revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention". As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility: the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity."—the political manifestation of slave morality because of its obsession with freedom and equality.
Tl;Dr read Nietzsche
>Women are actually oppressed in America though. They're forced to permanent sexual objects
I could say the same about right-leaning politics.
Rather than blaming those who take 50% of resources (when they constitute less than 1%), you blame the homeless man who takes less than a bowl of soup a day as a handout.
Right-wing politics usually prefer to blame politicians rather than homeless people. Homeless people usually don't even vote. They usually only blame homeless people for their own fate.
>Rather than blaming those who take 50% of resources (when they constitute less than 1%)
Not to mention opportunists and demagogues in the radio, newspapers, news websites and youtube endlessly trying to pander to fringe audiences by calling out PC extremists (feminists, fat rights activists, muslim apologists, etc) while at the same time showing themselves as the rational ones. It's grotesque ideological pushing.