Posts Tagged ‘victimhood’

‘We Won! We Won! They Pepper Sprayed Us!’ (Liberals Force Police To Respond So They Can Make Themselves ‘Victims’)

April 9, 2012

“We won!  We won!  They pepper sprayed us!”

That’s just a hope, a skip and a jump away from jihad and martyrdom and seventy-two virgins (well, it’s as close to a “martyr” as a spoiled-rotten liberal whiner is ever likely to get, but otherwise it’s pretty much the same way of thinking).   It’s just one more proof that to be a “liberal” is really just another way of being a “fascist.”

I’ve written about this as one of the top things that totally disgusts me about the left: the determination to make oneself “the victim”:

In any event, I’ve recently gotten a larger dose in a shorter period of time crap from liberals that I’ve basically been experiencing since the day I got my “very first comment” and it turned out to be from a liberal hater. I’m getting my fill of liberal avoidance and victimism and projection and other disorders.

“Victimism” in this context is when a liberal practices a particularly bizarre form of psychological jujitsu in order to make themselves the victim in an argument or debate. You see, in their warped little minds, if they can manage to make themselves the victim, they win. It doesn’t matter how strong your case is or how weak theirs is otherwise; in liberalism the victim always wins. Period. And look; they’re the victim!

So, of course, if I say something mean – (regardless of anything vile they previously said to me) – they become the victim and therefore they win the debate. Because that’s the way their world works.

You can, of course, translate this into the larger socio-economic-and-political issues: victimhood means everything to the left. It is a cherished status to be sought above everything else – especially above facts.

I would rather have someone sitting right next to me raking her fingernails over a chalkboard than be involved in such a “debate.” But as a conservative blogger I am nevertheless forced to endure it almost every day.

To be a liberal is to be a particularly vile toddler who pitches a completely hysterical fit in a store because mommy didn’t buy him the toy he wanted: and the whole world is supposed to be appalled at mean mommy rather than consider what a spoiled rotten little brat the kid is.

“We won! We won! They pepper-sprayed us!”: Proof that the purpose of protests is to provoke a police response

Doesn’t matter what the protest is about. Doesn’t matter who is protesting or what they’re protesting against. All that matters, in modern political activism, is that you provoke a reaction from the police, which you can then spin as an over-reaction, and claim moral victory.

The goal of protests now is to achieve victimhood. Thus, when police arrest, tear-gas, beat, or otherwise try to control an unruly mob, the protesters are ecstatically happy, because that’s why they were protesting in the first place.

But of course you can’t admit this publicly; part of the script is to act injured or sad or angry when the police respond to your provocations. That’s an essential component of your victimhood posturing.

Unfortunately, yesterday a protester at Santa Monica College let the mask slip during a mini-riot at a trustees’ meeting. Over a hundred screaming demonstrators were trying to force their way into the already over-capacity meeting room, and the overwhelmed cops assigned to guard the door felt the only way to drive the rioters back was to pepper-spray them. As soon as this happened, one of the rioters yelled in glee,

“We won! We won! They pepper-sprayed us!”

Here’s the video, with the triumphant statement at 1:09:

Wait — you won? How does getting pepper-sprayed constitute victory? I thought the goal of your protest was to force the trustees to give you a “free education,” as the protesters were chanting? That didn’t happen (tuition fees were not eliminated by the college’s trustees), so wouldn’t that mean that you lost?

Well, the statement wouldn’t make any sense unless the purpose of the protest was in fact to get pepper-sprayed. Which it was.

As is the case in most of these incidents, once you actually see the circumstances, your sympathy almost always switches over to the police, who in this case were totally outnumbered by a violent and unruly mob attempting to bum-rush and overwhelm a legal meeting.

We have seen this countless times in recent years, as protesters of every sort from coast to coast go to extreme lengths to provoke the police into (over)reactions, because declaring victimhood is the only way to garner sympathy for your otherwise obscure cause. The Occupy movement, for example, strives to achieve victimhood at every possible opportunity, as does basically every other group that follows Alinsky rules.

What makes this doubly absurd is that pepper-spray was designed specifically as a non-lethal, non-injurious crowd dispersal technique about which there would be no basis to complain, since it now substitutes for harsher methods that were previously used for centuries — such as savage beating, live ammunition, police dogs, etc. But now even the mildest, shortest-lasting crowd-control techniques are portrayed by the media as unbearable torture. (And I’ve been pepper-sprayed several times in my life, including most recently during riots at the 2008 Democratic convention, and can say from personal experience that 1. It stings and hurts, 2. It makes you cry and run away, and 3. Then it wears off fairly quickly and you’re back to normal, uninjured.)

The more that the general public becomes aware of the purpose of aggressive protesting, the less that the victimhood posturing game will have any effect on public opinion. Spread the word.

(Hat tip to The Jawa Report and Gateway Pundit.)

To put it in Charlie Sheen terms (and of course he’s another garden-variety moonbat liberal too, anyway): “Victim” equals “winner.”  And “winners” as we know have “tiger blood.”

I guess in the liberal version of paradise you get seventy-two porn stars instead of “virgins” in hopes of avoiding Muslim jihadist hell:

But I digress…

Advertisements

Obama Boasts Of ‘Reset’ In Relations With Russia – AGAIN

June 29, 2010

Obama is boasting about a “reset” in the United States’ relationship with Russia:

President Barack Obama welcomed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the White House on Thursday, boasting that the two men have reset their countries’ relationship in a way unthinkable when Obama took office.

But didn’t the Obama administration already do a reset with Russia last year?

Russian media has been poking fun at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she gave her Russian counterpart a “reset” button with an ironic misspelling.Clinton’s gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva on Friday evening was meant to underscore the Obama administration’s readiness to “to press the reset button” in ties with Moscow.

But instead of the Russian word for “reset” (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning “overload” or “overcharged” (peregruzka).

Daily newspaper Kommersant put a prominent picture of the fake red button on its front page and declared: “Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton pushed the wrong button.”

Well, yeah, but it was a really crappy one.

Newsweek sure isn’t very impressed with Obama’s “reset.”  They point out that it’s cost us a whole bunch while delivering virtually nothing beyond Obama being able to boast vacuously about a “reset”:

The problem, though, is that all this good will has been bought almost exclusively at Obama’s expense. The United States disappointed allies in Eastern Europe by scrapping plans to station missile-defense batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic, all in order to please Moscow. The Russian occupation of Georgia, America’s best friend in the former Soviet Union, has effectively been acknowledged as a fait accompli by Washington, again to please the Kremlin. At the same time, Washington has remained silent about increasing crackdowns on freedom of assembly inside Russia and the ongoing second trial of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

And what has Obama bought with all these diplomatic sacrifices? The list is pretty short.

Ooops.

Obama’s “reset” is just another empty exercise that allows Obama to pretend that he did something wonderful when in reality he merely failedagain.

Ronald Reagan – now widely recognized by the American people to have been our greatest president – had a far different concept of negotiating with a hostile power than Obama does.

Obama’s is to bow down.  I don’t even know what the “bow” count is now.

Ronald Reagan spoke of “victory” regarding Russia.

Reagan summed up his foreign policy dealing with hostile nations in a very few words:

We win, they lose.”

For Barack Hussein, “victory” – especially AMERICAN victory – is a four-letter word:

“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

One can understand why Obama does not want victory.  Losing is far more politically correct than winning, because the loser gets to plead that oh-so-special-to-liberals status of victimhood.

And isn’t that worth losing to get?

Obama’s misguided mindset is not based on history, as is itself evidenced by the fact that Obama gets his history wrong here when he says Hirohito surrendered to MacArthur.

It was the Japanese Foreign Minister who surrendered to MacArthur.  Hirohito was nowhere to be seen on the deck of the USS Missouri.

Maybe Obama should have asked the toes of the current Japanese emperor about that while he was grovelling before him:

The left mocked George Bush for saying he had looked into Putin’s eyes and found someone he could work with.

Now they’re proving they are even more naive than Bush was on his most naive day.

Obama is now seeing through Joseph Stalin’s eyes (after bowing, of course) and finding the Great Patriotic War.  It’s just so neat that Obama agrees with Russia’s historically revisionist view that allying itself with Nazi Germany, plundering Poland and Finland and agreeing to turn the rest of Eastern Europe into slave states, and then fighting the Nazis only after being double crossed was so, so, well, “great” and “patriotic”.

Do you think that Ronald Reagan would have gone to Russia and honored Stalin’s “Great Patriotic War”?

That is part of the reason why Barack Obama isn’t worth one of Ronald Reagan’s toilet leavings.

What is hilarious in its sheer ironic patheticness is that just a day after Obama announces his “reset,” we find this report coming just minutes ago (as of Monday, June 28):

WASHINGTON — Ten Russian intelligence officers have been arrested in the U.S. for allegedly serving as illegal agents tasked with recruiting political sources and gathering information to send back to Moscow, the Justice Department said Monday.

Eight of 10 were arrested Sunday for allegedly carrying out long-term, “deep cover” assignments on behalf of Russia. Two others were arrested for allegedly participating in the same Russian intelligence program within the United States.

Ooops.  Looks like Obama’s going to need yet a third “reset” with his former KGB buddy Vladimir Putin.