Realistic thought outrages the self-pitying


Let us consider the word victim.

When a bad event befalls you, you are its victim; when someone does something bad to you, you are a victim of their behavior.

Many people are perpetual victims. In their view, they are innocent and life has done horrible things to them. Repeatedly and in an ongoing sense. They are the blank slate; it (reality) is bad; the rest of us should compensate for that.

If you let them get away with that mentality, they never leave victimhood behind. They forever consider themselves weak, helpless and pitiable. That form of condescension ultimately leads to self-hatred and never leads to liberation. It’s a dead-end street as anyone who has survived it and changed course can tell you.

But it’s popular, especially among the young, the stay-at-home-Moms, the elderly and the mentally fragile.

Take a look at this article; the official title is “20 Things the Rich Do Every Day.” But it’s the subtitle that really says what the point of it all is:

So what do the rich do every day that the poor don’t do?

In other words, let’s look at rich and poor not as conditions imposed upon you, but as the results of your behavior. After all, just about everyone starts off poor, unless you’re Paris Hilton. Those who are able to have something in life do so by behaving in a certain manner.

This was Dave Ramsey’s point when he posted what became a controversial list of behaviors that rich people have and poor people do not, which is partially excerpted here:

1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor people gamble.

2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.

3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically four days a week. 23% of poor do this.

14. 6% of wealthy watch reality TV vs. 78% of poor.

15. 44% of wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of poor.

16. 74% of wealthy teach good daily success habits to their children vs. 1% of poor.

Why is this controversial?

It shows you how to get wealthy and stop being poor.

The only catch is that then you must assume responsibility for outcome. You can’t use “I’m a victim” to explain away this necessary confrontation with reality.

This scares people who fundamentally distrust life. Some have had bad things happen to them and are traumatized; the other 96% are people who pity themselves because it is easier than being morally accountable.

Most of these people go to work each day and “work hard” meaning they press hard on the pencil or keyboard as they fill out those forms or do whatever else menial is required of them.

But how many have actually applied themselves? What kind of decisions are they making?

To show them that their decisions could be better calls their existing decisions into question.

It doesn’t necessarily say they’re bad. But it removes them from the liberalism-sanctified space of “personal choice” and places them under scrutiny in regards to consequences.

Liberals want a society based on the suspension of personal judgment, so that if there are options A, B and C, whichever one you take is personally judged to be OK regardless of outcome:

Action Response
A “Whatever”

Conservatives do not concern themselves with personal judgment; they are more concerned about consequences. A conservative chart might look like this:

Action Response
A Bad
B Mediocre
C Good

Having seen the above, Conservatives conclude that action “C” should be the new rule, since it’s the only one with a good outcome.

This enrages liberals. To them, a lack of judgment of their actions — through the dubious mechanism of personal judgment that is nullified, albeit still a personal judgment — is important to shield them from their own incompetence and the vagaries of fate.

And yet, no society has ever risen by that principle. All of them have risen through the conservative principle, which is to assess cause and effect, and repeat actions that produce desirable effects.

Poverty will always be with us. However, it can be escaped at any time by changing behavior. While that threatens to remove victimhood as an excuse for non-performance, it also liberates us from the blindness and superstition of the liberal universe, where the effect of any action is a mystery and thus ignorance forever reigns.

Tags: , , , ,

14 Responses to “Realistic thought outrages the self-pitying”

  1. crow says:

    Hah! Those groundhogs are still eating Mini Wheats!
    I haven’t touched those things in years, and now I’m rich!

    • Repair_Man_Jack says:

      Fiber. Yummy. Ramsey just quantified common snese that people don’t want to admit is true. He must be !HATED!

  2. LoreTek says:

    11. 6% of wealthy say what’s on their mind vs. 69% of poor.
    12. 79% of wealthy network five hours or more each month vs. 16% of poor.

    I don’t like these two. I haven’t figured out why, but they feel off. They seem like “brown nosing” ie not saying whats wrong with your boss or only saying what you should (whats not on your mind) to move up in the business world. While 12 just seems like being “cool” and “known” both of which have been taken over by social media.

    I don’t know, maybe its just the word choices but I just don’t like them…

    • crow says:

      I don’t know what was meant by 11 and 12, but the alternate view might be:
      Saying what’s on your mind as in droning on about how you feel.
      Networking might mean associating with others as a means of being available for possible opportunities, as opposed to hiding out and killing time being drunk and/or stoned.

      I witnessed, recently, a female ne’er-do-well spending an entire day watching a TV in a second-hand store, going outside every ten minutes for a smoke, while claiming everything was getting harder and harder. Whatever that was, it wasn’t networking.

      • Donald Piano says:

        Interesting. For me #11 stood out as well, but in a good way.

        It reminds me of how most people usually just complain about problems instead of fixing them. I relate it to the introvert > extrovert dichotomy you see floating around these circles of the web, and also that Dunning-Kruger idea.

        LoreTek raises an interesting point, though. If the end goal is $, it can in certain situations be best to keep your mouth shut. This means that a lot of bad things slide through in the interest of $. Unfortunately at this point in Existence, I don’t think that there is any other way. $ = Life.

        If you have a problem with this, no one cares. I say this as someone who has a problem with it but is adapting by building layer upon layer of callused flesh. I will either make it, or I will lose my mind.

        • Hank says:

          Talking about all the injustices of the world and how you’d like to have power to stop certain things or save the unicorns doesn’t often translate into action or value. Poor people talk a great story and then do nothing about it, which is why they will always be poor.

          This is the capitalistic version of “weak men threaten, real men act.”

    • Boomer says:

      As much as I don’t like it, networking is part of the game as is not rocking the boat.

      Thus, being fake in order to gain favor from a bunch of strangers is a winning strategy.

      • crow says:

        It’s only a winning strategy only as long as it is remembered as being a strategy. When it becomes all one is, it’s the end. I see people all the time who are nothing but fake. They seem not to be able, any more, to be anything else.

  3. GoshDarnIt says:

    That list of behaviors of the rich vs the poor is utterly laughable in that you are trying to establish an A causes B situation. As usual, you are confusing association with causation.

    Most of the rich are rich because they were born with the capacity to persevere, and I daresay that some were just born with a lot of luck, though they’d be a small minority. But the basic stuff of success was there, even though if you look back at their childhood(s) you might not see it. But it was lurking within. (Think: DNA)

    Yes, in theory, poverty can be escaped by changing behavior, as you say. But most of the poor are poor because they don’t have the mental tools to get ahead according to your simple minded “eat less junk food”/”don’t watch so much reality TV”/ “stop spending your money on lotteries” list.

    Furthermore, not all chronically poor people blame others for their situation. Not in the least. Some are stuck in a morass, they can’t move, they don’t know what to do and they are fully self-aware. Lady Luck – that voice that tells you what the hell to do when you are in a bind – never spoke to them.

    None of this means we have to stay with liberal thinking, or continue with the welfare state. It just means:

    There but for the grace of God go you.

    • crow says:

      I have come to know you by your comments.
      Why miss any chance to insult superb writers by reminding them how small-minded and short-sighted they are, eh?
      Did it occur to you that your entire position is the very definition of leftist?

      • GoshDarnIt says:

        No, it did not occur to me that my position is leftist. I repudiate the fetishization of poor people or self-declared “victims”.

        However, the idea that you just have to change your behavior to change your life is irrelevant if certain folks don’t have that capacity and never will. “Just pull up your socks!” is right up there with believing that you can pull anyone out of a mud hut in a third world country, give them a good education in the finest school, spend enough money on them, and they’ll become doctors! Pure liberalism!

        The writer never acknowledges that some people will never be able to change their behavior. That is what is missing from the article in my opinion and there was no intention to make him or anyone else here feel insulted.

        • crow says:

          Fair enough.

          The writer is essentially a realist, and as such, does not concern himself with trying to cater to the specific needs/wants/demands of every individual.

          The system, as-is, clearly doesn’t work, and he attempts to isolate just why that is. If some people are born losers, lacking the wherewithal to elevate themselves, well that’s the way it is.

          Meanwhile, such writing moves the odd loser into attempting to clear the hurdle that keeps him in that state. By himself, as is the only way to attain anything of value.

          And at the same time, those who are not losers get to read that they are not alone, and are not insane, which is very easy to believe when surrounded by enough leftists.

          • GoshDarnIt says:

            I imagine that a small portion of the chronic loser community (heh heh) may be motivated to change their lives for the better by reading an article such as Brett’s. This kind of kick-in-the-arse has certainly happened in the past, but it’s only the exception that proves the rule.

            • crow says:

              You wouldn’t know, but I myself was one of those losers.
              Bigtime serious poor, as poor as anyone, ever.
              On top of that I couldn’t even speak.
              I am a fuckin’ expert on poor.
              So I get slightly peeved when people take it upon themselves to imagine they speak for the poor, imagining that the poor, as a group, have noble qualities and count for anything.
              They don’t. That’s part of being poor.

              Mostly, the so-called poor are not poor at all, anyway.
              If the poor don’t know even what poor is, then the not-poor certainly don’t.

              Granted, there are poor people in poor countries. So what? That is the very reason a country needs to remain a country, with borders, lest all areas become poor ones.
              Simple logic dictates if you add enough poor people to a not-poor country, the country becomes poor.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>