"the child takes their growing pains out on their parents"
The basic Socialist argument goes something like this: you have more than somebody else therefore you got it by exploiting them. When it comes to Socialists or people of a victim mentality (same thing really) they think that differences and disparities are a bad thing. They think that if somebody has more than somebody else that it is bad. They think that if somebody is suffering then it is because somebody hurt them.
This is a really big and deep topic so let's explore it a bit.
I think we see this most clearly with children and their parents. How often have we seen children get upset at their parents for being "mean" or "stupid" or whatever else because they wanted their child to go to school? How bad is the parent because they don't want their child hanging around a certain kid? Is the parent bad because they want you to eat something besides candy? Is the parent evil for telling you to go to bed at a decent hour? Are rules bad? Is instruction bad?
It's quite interesting because many children will see growth as bad, especially when it comes from the parent. Both parties have different perspectives. The child is less experienced, more short-sighted and more naive. They usually make inferior choices than the parent does. And this is why the parent is guiding them throughout the way. But being guided sometimes isn't fun. So the child takes their growing pains out on their parents. And this is the price the parents pay for being more experienced and in the position of teacher.
But of course it doesn't stop here.
If you're smarter than somebody else you're arrogant and a nerd. If you're a better athlete you couldn't have possibly worked for it. If you're wealthier than somebody then you don't deserve it. If you're better looking than somebody else then you're vain. It never ends. If you don't want somebody else to come and drag you down you're hateful. If you are better at something than somebody else you have to cater to them, otherwise you're bad.
"There are a lot of things that men are better than women at"
And so we have all these generalities and patterns that get created based around all these different things. We start to see patterns emerge with things people make decisions on and then things people don't make decisions on as well.
If somebody is born rich or born good looking this isn't a choice. But if somebody becomes good looking through exercise or wealthy through education this is a choice. And often times we have a hard time differentiating whether something is a choice or luck. And when in doubt, or sometimes no matter what, we call it luck. But we most certainly never call it for what it is.
We see this with genders. There are a lot of things that men are better than women at. Men are better at sports. Men are generally better at working. Men are geared to take more risks than women and can handle pressure better than women. I'm already starting to piss a lot of people off by saying this. And because of the fact that I am a male stating an obvious truth I am already beginning to pay that price with this very post. Because I am a male stating that men are better risk takers than women I am now sexist and ridiculed for being a better risk taker than women. It is such interesting and faulty logic.
There are many things women are better than men at. Women are much more nurturing than men. Women are much more sensitive and in tune with their intuition and emotions. But if a woman was to say this to another man they may also pay a price for being better.
Look, of course I'm talking in generalities. I get that it's not all one way or another. Of course it is nuanced. But in general there are patterns and there are trends that can be understood.
"You can't save other people by destroying yourself"
But what tends to happen is that the group that is better most often becomes the one that is attacked most often. And because they are better they become accustomed to the constant nagging and pulling from the lessers telling them to share, to be nicer, to help out, to have a heart, or whatever else they can come up with to shift things in their favor. The better group hears the tug from the other group constantly bickering at them and they become apathetic to it. The shear assault on character and identity begins to win on the better through attrition. And so the better becomes weaker and the weaker becomes even weaker by never developing the strength themselves. In an airplane we're instructed to put our oxygen mask on first, but in real life we're told to save everyone but ourselves. You can't save other people by destroying yourself.
Is what I'm saying making sense? Are you catching what I'm saying?
We see this with races. Yes, that's right, races. Let's go there. I don't care if people want to say that all races are the same. They're obviously not or we wouldn't group them into different races. They're obviously not because different races act different in many different measurements. Different races have different IQs, different attitudes towards government, different attitudes towards parenting and different attitudes towards gratification. We know this. This is factual and easily understood through research.
But the groups that don't perform well in certain categories don't like hearing this. The groups that have a light shining on their problems are like the child acting out to their parent. They don't want to be told no. They don't want to be told the truth. They don't want to be accountable to their decisions. They don't want to have to grow. And so they don't. They resort to the attack on the better. And so once again, this is the price you pay for being better. If you are a race with a higher IQ you are going to pay a price, whether directly or indirectly. If you are a race that is a better parent you are going to pay a price. If you don't favor big government you are going to pay a price.
You have to understand that being better, right or educated is a price you will pay.
It will never go the other way around. If you are better you are never justified in attacking the weak or the poor. But if you are weak or poor you are always justified in attacking the better. And that's just the way it is. So once again, by slowly whittling down the better you slowly defeat them through attrition. And of course you both end up losing.
So who is better? Who are the one's being attacked? Who is paying the price for being better? All you have to do is look around. Who is behind all the problems in society? Who goes unnoticed for all the good they have done and are constantly attacked for not even doing bad, but by simply not giving themselves to the lesser? Who is attacked for wanting to help others by strengthening them as opposed to weakening them? Who is persecuted for championing self-responsibility, virtue, growth and wisdom? Who is wrong for always taking to higher road only to be beaten down by those taking the lower road? Who is wrong to be better? Who is wrong for wanting better? Who is wrong for creating better? Who is wrong for not handing everything earned, worked towards and sacrificed for only to have it thrown in their face for being a racist, misogynist because they chose to have better? Other people can be that, but not you. You're held to a different standard. You're a bad person.
Shame on you for being better.
Filed under:Personal Development, Devolution, Rich People Are Lucky, Victim of Self