Source:https://andreaostrovletania.substack.com/p/the-problems-of-the-politics-of-victimhood
The current crisis unfolding in Gaza reveals a portrait of victimology so characteristic of the global discourse. Each side claims to be David against the other side, the Goliath. It’s richly ironic because David, like Samson, made his name in conflicts with the Philistines (often the villains in the Torah), the ancient progenitors of the modern day Palestinians (at least according to national myths though some geneticists say otherwise), but the roles are almost reversed today with the Palestinians/Philistines taking on the role of the David/Samson against the Jewish Goliath.
Jewish legends are also filled with narratives of oppression under the Romans, but it’s the Jews who now command the Neo-Roman-Empire that is the US and NATO. In contrast, the Palestinians, whose distant ancestors fought long and bitter battles with the dreaded Israelites, have absorbed much of the Jewish way of thinking via Christianity and Islam, both universalist outgrowths of Jewish spirituality, cosmology, and narratives.
With the US as the lone superpower backing a heavily armed Israel against what amounts to a ragtag bunch of militias among the Palestinians, even the story of the Masada now resonates more with the Palestinian struggle than with the Jewish Agenda. In a role reversal of Biblical proportions, much of the world now views Jewish Power (and Jews in general) as akin to the Bad Guys in the Bible while idealizing the modern day Philistines (or the Palestinians) as akin to the Good Guys in the Bible. Gaining control of the US was the biggest coup in the history of Jewish power and influence, but the downside is that the Jews are now considered the masters of the world than as pitiable Holocaust Victims.
Arguably, Jews came up with the two greatest Victim Narratives: Christianity and the Holocaust, called ‘Holocaustianity’ by some (and of course, the Noble Negro myths also owe a great deal to Jews who expanded on the cult of ‘white guilt’ cooked up by the likes of Harriet Beecher Stowe). Christianity is the creation of heretical Jews whose ideas came to dominate the West for nearly 1,500 yrs, and the Holocaust/Shoah has dominated the moral-political discourse since the end of World War II, indeed to the point that it’s impossible to go anywhere in the West (and even some parts of the non-West) without Holocaust Memorials/Museums and local politicians spouting off solemnly about how it must ‘never happen again’. The quasi-religion is also the main reason why Nazism is deemed the most evil ideology ever: It committed the worst crime ever, so it must be the worst regime ever.
As both Christianity and ‘Shoahria’ are understood and practiced today, both are victimological cults fixated on either holier-than-thou victim-sanctimony (or ‘vicsantimony’) or holier-than-thou displays of guilt-atonement (especially among whites indoctrinated with Political Correctness and its worse outgrowth, ‘wokeness’). Shoahria was conceived to be a victimological cult (and a vendetta cult as well), and it isn’t difficult to understand why Christianity soon turned into a victimological cancer that eventually came to shape the moral-spiritual discourse of the entire world, ironically through the triumph of Western Imperialism, during which the educated elites all around the world learned to think and talk like the West (even in struggles against it).
Of course, the special problem with Shoahria is its tribal-victimology, i.e. the Holocaust was truly tragic not because ‘six million people’ were killed but because ‘six million JEWS’ were killed; as such, it values Jewish lives above the lives of other groups and is therefore an anti-humanist form of supremacism. It’s no wonder that the Holocaust is often invoked to justify wars and violence in the name of Jewish interests, indeed as if those deserve priority because Jews are better than other peoples whose mounting piles of the dead count for little. Just look at Ukraine. For all the Jewish kvetching about the integrity of the Ukrainian nation, the policy is to ‘fight to the last Ukrainian’, possibly to clear the land for future Jewish colonization. Shoahria was meant to be all about the Jews and no one else.
If Shoahria is working as intended in its icono-narrative creation, the victimology of Christianity may actually be a perversion of the original meaning. In its purest form, Christianity is ‘saintological’ or ‘martyrological’ than victimological. While Jesus had great sympathy for the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, and the defeated, He didn’t believe poverty and powerlessness were qualifiers of virtue and goodness. One could be poor but be greedy. One could be a loser and have a lusty heart. One could be powerless but crave power. Being truly good was a matter of the heart. If anything, contrary to being anti-poverty, Jesus preached voluntary poverty of giving away most of one’s wealth and willfully adopting a spartan life as the path to spiritual redemption. Complaining about being poor and desiring wealth meant one’s heart wasn’t in the right place. This is what goes ignored by the current victimological Christianity that assumes that, just because a people happen to be the wretched of the earth or historically oppressed, they are automatically virtuous. In truth as a matter of personal character, most ‘losers’ are just as wicked and nasty as the ‘winners’… if not more so.
According to original and true Christianity, the poor and the powerless deserve sympathy but not respect and certainly redemption in the eyes of God. To be truly good, to be truly saved, one must purge one’s heart of devilish temptations. Tony Montana was certainly poor and powerless as a newly arrived Cuban refugee in Brian DePalma’s SCARFACE, but he was certainly no saint.
Original Christianity is also not as judgmental and hateful as what it became later, and what it certainly is today — for all the talk of ‘inclusion’ and ‘welcoming everyone’ in the Current Year, the two main strains of American Christianity demands that you bow down either to Zion or Sodom, or both, or else you can go to hell. None other than Jesus, the Messiah and the Son of God according to the mythology, spoke of forgiveness for the blood-thirsty mob. “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Even those celebrating the torture and death of the Son of God were deserving of a chance at redemption. Jesus understood the essential weakness of man in body and spirit, and His own example of sermons and sacrifice, or practicing what one preaches, was meant not only as an inspiration for mankind but a reminder of how man shall always fall short in the face of temptation or fear (as when Peter denied Jesus three times).
Earlier when saving Mary Magdalene, Jesus said, “He who is without sin can cast the first stone”. It’s so different from current Christianity where the believers are so full of themselves. Whether it’s the Christian Evangelicals calling for the smiting of entire Palestinian villages OR ‘woke’ Christians rhapsodizing about Magic Negroes and Holy Homos and can’t through the day without viewing the World in terms of ‘angels and demons’ (with generally Jews, blacks, and homos as the angels while ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, and ‘Anti-Semites’ are the demons), Christianity has become a game of cops-and-robbers of victimology. Not that these Christian-types really care about all victims of the world as their victimological hierarchy is mostly dependent on whichever group happens to control the Narrative (now close to Fantasy) and Iconography.
Original or True Christianity must judge but also be understanding (of the sinners yet to be redeemed), yet the current Christianity not only shuns core values (as the basis for righteous judgement) but is downright ecstatic (to the point of fanatical judgmentalism) about depravities such as globo-homo, tranny-tyranny, and/or the idolatry of the Magic Negro, as if being black automatically confers moral stature. Rather odd how Christianity that developed by rejecting Jewish tribalism (or cult of specialism) has come around to idolizing certain groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos, over all others. (Not that dimwitted so-called ‘Christian Nationalists’ make much sense either as Christianity isn’t about nationalism. If anything, it grew out of a bunch of heretical Jews rejecting their own tribe in favor of mankind, albeit one that can be saved ONLY THROUGH the blessing of the Messiah in the form of a carpenter-preacher born of a Jewish woman.)
The fusion of Roman military might and Christian spiritual meaning was most constructive, indeed essential to Christianity’s eventual rise to world power. But the compromise and collusion with temporal powers of organized violence and vast wealth robbed Christianity of its true meaning and integrity. As the future of Christianity became wedded to the fate of a military empire (and others such down the line), what it preached became a mockery by what it practiced.
Unlike Judaism and later Islam that balanced matters worldly and heavenly, Christianity was founded on a profound rejection of the Kingdom of Man in favor of the Kingdom of Heaven. Unlike Judaism and Islam that urged its followers to strive for power and wealth but in a righteous manner and with generosity to the Temple or Mosque, Jesus preached against wealth and power themselves. Just as Karl Marx later identified bourgeois capital as the source of all problems that must be eradicated, Jesus regarded worldliness itself as the source of man’s condition snared in sin. No matter how righteous one tried to be in business or politics, it could only lead him astray from the true path, one of virtuous poverty and prayer-meditation of God and Heaven. It was somewhat akin to the Buddhist idea that desire and attachment, however inspired or heartfelt, are the cause of mankind’s inability to escape the cycles of life/suffering/death and attain Nirvana.
Because both Buddhism and Christianity are rarefied high-concept religions, abstractions of the highest value from the worldly realm, they make for uneasy and even perverse relationships with temporal forces. Buddhism practiced by the ruthless samurai became a form of nihilism. The historical bloodbaths in the name of Christ would surely make the original Jesus weep.
Then, it’s no wonder that the survival, perpetuation, and expansion of both spiritual-political systems came to rely increasingly on the priesthood that served as dogmatists, apologists, and propagandists, so unlike the soul-searching pioneers. In the end, the pragmatists who sought favors from the rich and powerful won out. Not that pragmatism is necessarily a bad thing, but the spiritual nature of Buddhism and Christianity left little moral space for compromise (with worldly powers) that was more permissible under Judaism and Islam.
Every religion or ideology has its contradictions, which lead to neurosis. For example, Judaism maintains there is only one God over all mankind, but He favors Jews uber alles. Thus, Judaism is a combination of monotheism and monotribalism: Yahweh is the Only True God, and Jews are the Only True People.
Christians pride themselves on their power and virtue, but the power of the Christian West owed a great deal to greed, violence, aggression, plunder, and exploitation. The Christian World surely didn’t come to great power and wealth by practicing what Jesus preached.
One may argue Islam is less neurotic than Judaism and Christianity because, unlike Judaism, it accepts all of mankind as the brotherhood of man under Allah and, unlike Christianity, accepts the need for worldly ambition and violence in defense and expansion of the Muslim Order. But some of its rules on dress, diet, and drink (though not agreed upon by all Muslims) are enough to drive many people crazy, and the fact that Muslim World has been so lagging in human achievements surely has some Muslim intellectuals scratching their heads, “If we walk the righteous path, why do we suck so bad in so many areas?”
The current victimology of the various secular ideologies cannot be understood apart from the Christian cult of sainthood. In a way, victimology is a perversion of sainthood as, despite their outward similarities, they are worlds apart in their deeper meanings, though, to be sure, an idiot saint may not know the difference and choose self-sacrifice for victims who don’t deserve the sympathy.
Jesus on the Cross was placed between two crucified criminals, both of whom could qualify as ‘victims of circumstances perpetuated by the system’ (at least according to the current ‘woke’ ideology concerning black criminals as ‘victims’ of ‘systemic racism’), but Jesus made a clear distinction between the two criminals. In physical terms, both were equally ‘victimized’ by the Roman authorities or the ‘system’ but only because they were caught. As free men, they could still be going around thieving, raping, or murdering.
But one of the criminals/sinners admits why he’s on the cross. He transgressed against others and must pay for his crimes. In contrast, the other criminal has no such understanding and berates Jesus for not summoning divine powers to set them all free. His body’s in the same situation as the other thief but not his heart. He only cares about his own agony, apparently unfeeling about the people he’d victimized. His only concern is that Jesus might use some magic to set him free so he could return to his usual self, a no-good punk.
One sinner on the cross realizes the difference between Jesus and himself. While others on the cross, including himself, are being punished for various crimes, Jesus chose the self-sacrificial path of the proto-saint, possibly a new moral concept for mankind. There’s a crucial difference between sainthood and victimhood.
And Jesus addresses the difference between the sinner who has seen the light and the sinner who remains in darkness. While both are equally ‘victimized’ at the physical level, the former understands the circumstances that led to his demise — whether he too is a ‘victim’ of society or not, he himself has victimized others, thus only perpetuating the vicious cycle — whereas the latter is incapable of any concern except “what about me?” Therefore, Jesus accepts the former but rejects the latter. In other words, it’s not enough to be a ‘victim’ to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, even a murderer can be murdered, even a robber can be robbed, even a swindler can be swindler (the bread and butter of David Mamet’s works that exult in the hunt or hustle). The victimizer can also be victimized. And even a non-murderer can have murder in his heart; even those without the nerves to actually rob may obsess about it as fantasy.
As society became secularized, matters of the heart and morality became less fashionable as more of everything came to be explained in material, economic, sociological, political, or historical terms. Notions such as ‘free will’ and agency were disdained or rejected as ‘unscientific’ or even atavistic. Even cultural explanations fell out of favor, if only because particular groups might take umbrage or be stigmatized. For example, the idea that certain cultural attitudes are more likely to result in social problems might offend those into ‘nigga’ culture or the single-mother lifestyle.
Such fashionable scientism argues that the main source of existing racial problems is the result of the false science of ‘racism’ that poisoned many white minds with the idea that (1) races exist (2) races are different (3) whites are better and have the right to lord over the lesser races. Therefore, if such modern superstitions could be erased from people’s minds, the world could move toward real healing and progress.
But, it could be argued that ‘anti-racist’ social science (essentially a scientism that has the semblance of science but not its rigor) is the real superstition, a modern demonology based more on idolatrous portrayals of blacks as natural saints (in stupid movies, TV shows, and ‘woke’ novels) and dehumanization of whites as ‘babies born racist’. Besides, the historical fact that whites exploited the idea of racial differences to their advantage doesn’t mean the differences aren’t real. A smart person can use the notion of IQ differences to enrich himself at the expense of the less intelligent, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact of IQ differences. It’s a fallacy to believe that something is unreal because it’s open to abuse. If so, guns wouldn’t be real because they’ve been misused through the ages. If men invoke sexual differences to push women around, does that mean sexual differences aren’t real?
Now, the sense of victimization is natural to the human condition. Animals feel it too. Surely, if a pack of wolves brings down a moose and a bear comes along and takes the kill for itself, the wolves are going to feel awfully pissed and ‘wronged’. But the only recourse for animals is to fight back or retreat in a world governed by the Rule of Claw. Besides, who are the wolves to complain when they ‘stole’ the life of a moose? Highly intelligent animals with estimable memories even exhibit behavior akin to revenge against those who ‘wronged’ them. Elephants have been known to hold grudges.
It’s natural for children to feel terribly wronged whenever something doesn’t go their way, and playing ‘victim’ is an easy way to gain affection. Take candy from a child, and he or she thinks it’s the greatest injustice ever, the end of the world. As they grow older, they are taught that “life isn’t fair” and one has to take the hard knocks of life. Some people develop tough enough skins and accept life as a series of struggles and setbacks. Others, due to prevailing cultural attitudes, ideological indoctrination, or personality traits, can’t overcome a constant sense of ‘victimhood’ whenever something doesn’t go their way. If some are prone to feeling wronged all the time, intentionally or not, others are prone to feeling ‘guilty’ for always wronging others even if they haven’t directly harmed anyone, certainly not intentionally. Likewise, some people feel no guilt even as they harm others while others always feel guilty even though they do no harm. All are forms of pathologies, the product of empathy-deficit or empathy-surplus.
Even though modern schools of victimology flow from the Christian tradition, victimhood is as old as humanity itself. Whenever someone was cheated out of his fair share, of course he felt as the victim. Whenever a tribe was conquered, ravaged, and enslaved by another, of course it felt violated and brutalized, or victimized. Still, it wasn’t anything special in a world of instability and uncertainty. It was just the way of the world, only a few steps above the way of nature where might is right.
Also, in a world without universally agreed-upon values, a person who was cheated may cheat others if given the chance. A tribe that was attacked and expelled by another tribe may go on to attack and expel yet another tribe. Thus, while it was certainly unpleasant to be at the receiving end of victimhood, it wasn’t so bad to be at the giving end. In such a world, victimhood lacks a holy glow as every side that is victimized is also eager to victimize others when the opportunity arises. Consider the constant warfare among the Germanic Barbarians or the American Indians. Even among the advanced European civilizations, there were endless tussles over land, materials, and routes, and at the end of the day, the only rule that really mattered was ‘who came out on top’ when the dust settled.
Even though victim-narratives were certainly useful — surely even cavemen had their version of ‘Remember the Alamo’ to rally the troops for the next melee with rival clans — , victimhood wasn’t something to be proud of in and of itself. It was useful to get one’s blood boiling so as to wreak vengeance when the time was right.
Greek Drama is full of victims of gods and men, but there’s no pride in just being a victim. Even Sophocles’ ANTIGONE, one that comes closest to being a victim narrative, is an entangled tale of competing loyalties and obligations than a sob story of some saintly girl undone by an irredeemable villain. The tragedy isn’t so much that the ruler is an irredeemable villain (or that Antigone as the tragic heroine is pure as snow)but a righteous ruler who overplayed his hand and let his pride get the better of him, triggering a set of unforeseen events. What he hoped to contain came to contaminate everything.
But then, the Greek World was a contest of competing gods, and the favor of one could well mean the curse of another. As such, it was difficult to conceive of the holy in the Jewish, Christian, or Islamic sense. Something deemed sacred in relation to one god could very well be an affront to another god. Nothing could be holy in the unified and total sense, and even when the gods were in agreement, they were far from perfect to begin with.
Contrary to pagan polytheism, Judaism insisted on the one God. Not only is the Jewish God the greatest god but the only God, and His truth is the only truth. There cannot be any competing spiritual vision or truth. Angels are not gods but mere servants of God, and any angel who defies God is an agent of Evil, not a spiritual counterpoint. And not only is God totally great but totally good.
Given the darker sides of God in the Torah, Christianity purified the spiritual-moralistic concept of God to the point where God sacrifices Himself (or His Son) for the salvation of Mankind. Even though the Christian mythology says Jesus Christ died on the Cross to wash away the sins of man, it only makes sense if He also died to wash away the sins of God, albeit something that cannot be mentioned because Christianity, like Judaism, maintains that God was, is, and shall always be perfect. But if God is perfect in the Torah, what need for a new religion where God is, in more ways than one, reconceptualized? If something is perfect, why would it need fixing? The only explanation, if indeed God has always been perfect and the same, is that Jews of the Torah misunderstood and mischaracterized Him and that, finally at last, Jesus and St. Paul finally set things straight as to the TRUE nature of God.
Of course, from the Jewish point of view, their understanding of God is the true one whereas Christianity is a heresy of the worst sort. When it comes to spiritual logic, Christianity has an advantage as it was founded on the story of a few characters and a small set of key concepts. In contrast, because the Torah is an anthology of sorts, a record of the evolving natures of God, Yahweh comes across as a jumble of contradictions, sometimes caring and compassionate, sometimes ruthless and cruel, sometimes wise and considerate, sometimes arbitrary and nihilistic.
Given Jewish assertions that their God is both universal (as the only true God for all places and all times) and tribal (with a special contract with the Jews), both profoundly moral (or averse to abusing His power) and ruthlessly arbitrary (as Job came to wonder), it’s hardly surprising that a branch of Judaic culture sought to arrive at a more logical and consistent vision of God, especially during the crisis with Rome.
For the Jewish Early Christians, the answer was to spread the light to the pagans or gentiles. For the Talmudists following the destruction of Jerusalem, it was to turn God into a game theory of power, reflected even now in the works of David Mamet. In a way, both Christianity and Talmudism came to terms with elements of paganism. Jesus is very much like a demigod (half-god, half-man) in many pagan tales. And Talmudism, disappointed with God of the Torah who failed to protect the Jews from the wrath of the Romans and other lowly goyim, played with notions that God may not be the only God or the total power.
Still, the idea that there is only one true or totally awesome deity and that He isn’t only all-powerful but all-good had a profound impact on the Jewish and Christian views of morality. Christianity has an added element that isn’t so pronounced in Judaism and Islam: Holier-than-Thou sanctimony, surely the worst aspect of the faith. Though saints or saint-like figures exist in all three religions, it is Christianity that elevated saints above all others. Judaism is essentially a religion of prophets and judges. Their visions and values are half-spiritual, half-temporal. They seek wisdom and higher truths but are also grounded in the ‘world of shit’ in which their kind must hustle and scramble. (As Jews lacked military might, they became masters of soft power, though Christianity, the greatest soft power to arise out of Judaism, took on a life of its own. The Zealots proved that Jews couldn’t get very far with violence alone. The Early Christians learned they couldn’t get very far with virtue alone, and eventually the Christians formed a pact with the Roman Empire. Still, the ideal of Christianity is to win the battle of hearts, not of arms. Talmudists also understood they couldn’t win with arms and relied on wit, and their insights are for future would-be-prophets what Machiavelli’s advice was for the princes. Talmudism’s emphasis on wit makes them hold in contempt the Christianity’s emphasis on the heart, deemed dumb given the way of the world. Worse, Christianity was doubly contemptible because, for all its sanctimonious piety about sainthood, it gained power and wealth like the empires of old: wars and plunder. Talmudists and Jewish Early Christians were agreed on one thing: Jews cannot win through might alone. Where they differed was in the method, with Talmudism turning into a sardonic interpretation of spirituality & mankind and with Christianity turning into a willfully naive faith in souls turned to Christ.)
Islam has martyrs too, but they are usually fallen warriors, proud men who gave as good as they got until finally felled by the sword or arrows. Thus, Islam generally lacks the holier-than-thou sanctimoniousness of Christianity with its ideal of the pacific saint who, in the goodness of his heart, doesn’t fight back but dies with love and forgiveness for his tormentors in the hope that his virtuous self-sacrifice will inspire them toward redemption. But as Luis Bunuel’s adaptation of NAZARIN shows, that never went very far. The real reason why the West came to such greatness was the aggression, ambition, avarice, and mastery of the material world in just about every field. If Christianity did play a role in the triumph of the West, it was by serving as a kind of moral-spiritual-emotional gyroscope with the effect of reminding people of the dangers of excess. Old paganism, without such a balancing mechanism, was more prone to capsize from an excess of egotism.
Because of its emphasis on sainthood, a kind of self-sacrificing willful victimhood (without complaint), Christianity, more than any other form of spirituality, laid the foundation of the cult of victimhood. At the very least, one could admire the saints and martyrs for their virtue, compassion, and courage in the face of brutality and death, i.e. they practiced what they preached and chose ‘victimization’ as morally and spiritually preferable to the alternatives, such as fight-fire-with-fire or hate-those-who-hate-you.
The real problem began with the associative cult of victimhood, which roughly came to be the foundation of victimology that, if anything, has grown bigger than ever in our times (when humanity never had it so good). Somewhere down the line, it became sufficient for Christians to be spiritually associated with the saints and martyrs of the past. So, never mind if Christians were the new dominant force throughout Europe. Never mind that they had the power of life and death, freedom and repression, for the heathens and heretics. Never mind they had the backing of the power of money and military. As long as they went on invoking the stories of Early Christians hunted down by vicious Christ-killing Jews or thrown to the lions by the Roman pagans, they could sustain their self-image as pious saints persecuted by the evildoers of the world. So, Christians in the Middle Ages, who were torturing people or burning witches alive, were blind to their own tyranny and cruelty because they, as Christians, were fixated on the cult of Eternal Victimization as a daily reminder from the stories of Jesus, the Disciples, and the Early Christians. (Of course, some Christians in the Reformation began to wonder about the soundness of their spiritual worldview when two sets of Christians, Catholics and Protestants, began to slaughter one another while crying ‘victim’.)
But worse than the associative cult of victimhood was the emergence of identity-victimhood with hardly a reminder of what makes victimhood meaningful. At the very least, associative victimhood emphasizes the kind of people who made the faith or movement noble and uplifting in the first place, i.e. there is a clear distinction between the average Christian and those relative few who, in their utter devotion to Jesus’ teachings, led saintly lives, even unto suffering and death. As such, there is some moral pressure on the believers to at least pay due respect to the saints and make some effort to emulate their integrity and virtue.
In contrast, identity-victimhood tends to be self-centered (and prone to triviality, such as fixating over ‘muh hair’ or ‘muh pronouns’). In the US/West, the black cult of victimhood went from the associative kind to the identity kind. Black leaders and thinkers reminded whites and blacks alike of the history of the Negroes in America, how blacks had been exploited as slaves and denied the full rights as declared in its founding. There were stories of how blacks toiled in the fields and factories to make America what it is. As such, whites need to be mindful of black needs, but blacks also need to be mindful of what their ancestors had gone through and strive for dignity and respect.
But, at some point, the black cult of victimhood became a kind of nihilism, or “Because I’m black, I’m a noble victim even when I do wrong”, the corollary to which is “Whites are always wrong, even when they do right.” Of course, we still hear of past injustices, especially through endless regurgitations about Emmett Till and Harriet Tubman, but for most blacks, ill-educated, ignorant, and uninterested in little else but Rap music and Booty culture, it’s enough to holler about ‘systemic racism and shit’. What exactly is ‘systemic racism’? It’s a Kafkaesque term that is everything and nothing. Less clear the better as every third-rate ‘woke’ moron can play Sherlock Holmes in his or her (or they’s) investigation into how the evil of ‘racism’ permeates the entire ‘system’.
So, if you’re a fat, ugly, stupid, moronic black fool who dropped out of high school and loot stores, you’re a noble victim simply because you-be-black-and-shit. And if you don’t like your hair and prefer white women’s hair, dat be some great injustice and shit. And if you’re obsessed about your fingernails (and fancy work done on them), dat be some revolutionary act and shit.
The depraved level of today’s identity-victimology is truly something to behold. While the real Emmett Till was a lowlife punk and no saint, at the very least it was true that he was murdered. Not a saint but surely a victim.
The Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and George Floyd narratives are entirely different. Martin was beating up a brown man who shot Martin in self-defense. Michael Brown was a big thug who charged the police who shot him in self-defense. All video evidence shows that George Floyd was spiraling out of control under drugs and simply wouldn’t cooperate with the police who were trying to take him to the hospital. The autopsy expert said the moron didn’t die of a broken neck or asphyxiation, but it didn’t matter. He was black, and Jewish Power and the Democrat masses just wanted something to charge Trump’s America with (‘white supremacism’ of course) or feel holier-than-thou about, and so, the thug-junkie-moron was made into a saint, the qualities of which Floyd didn’t possess even at the infinitesimal level.
They never wanted equality or equity, it was always about some misguided revenge against white people. pic.twitter.com/khX9MozirI
— iamyesyouareno (@iamyesyouareno) October 29, 2023
Many Christian churches adopted Floyd as the saint-martyr of the hour, an obvious illustration of how the Christian concept of sainthood has been thoroughly hollowed out. Once, there were real saints. Then, there were worldly types who felt ennobled in association with the saints. Finally, there are people who feel as ‘saint-victims’ simply because their identities have been idolized as more ‘iconic’ than others.
This is pronounced among Jews as well. Initially, the Holocaust was about remembering those who’d perished under Nazism. Then, it was about invoking Anne Frank to remind Jews and Goyim of the special place that Jews have in history and the world. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, it turned into Jews are holy for being Jews and may do anything as they please because they are the Eternal Victims. The Holocaust went from a moral reminder to a license for nihilism. Jews who never stop rubbing the German nose in the Shoah now urge the Germans to support the Jewish-Nazi Alliance in Ukraine and to fully endorse the Nazi-like Zionist destruction of the Palestinians. In the irony of ironies, the Holocaust Narrative has come full circle in insisting that Jews have the right to act like Nazis because they were victimized by Nazis, the logic of which cannot serve any kind of morality at all.
The current victimology is a cancerous outgrowth of the cult of victimhood. Instead of regarding victimization, victimhood, or victim status as part of a group’s identity and history, it is regarded as the central defining character. It’d be like an individual who was terribly wronged at some point in his or her life presenting himself or herself as a forever-victim on the basis of that unfortunate event. A man who was beaten deserves sympathy for the ordeal, but it doesn’t entitle him to play victim all the time. A woman who was raped surely carries a mental scar, but there’s far more to her than a ‘rape victim’. Life goes on.
Furthermore, as no one is a pure angel, people who are wronged also wrong others. People who are lied to lie also lie, people who are robbed also rob. People who’ve lost loved ones to murder may also commit murder. All of humanity has been caught up in cycles of violence forever. Just because Greeks and Armenians suffered under the Turks doesn’t mean they get to play forever-victims. The Civil Rights struggle doesn’t give blacks the license to cry ‘racism’ and play victim at every turn, especially when they are the biggest thugs, robbers, rapists, and murderers in the US. Jewish victimhood is only one side of Jewish History that is rife with Jewish exploitation of and wrongs done to others. And the Shoah doesn’t mean Jews are above the law. Just because some Jewish-American lost a distant relative in the Holocaust doesn’t mean he can lie, cheat, and commit all sorts of nefarious acts, especially concerning because Jews aren’t just another ethnic group but the ruling authority over the Lone Superpower with far-reaching influence around the world via the academia, media, finance, and whore politicians in all the US satellites. Was it in SPIDERMAN that someone said, ‘Great power means great responsibility?’ Responsibility comes by the way of honesty and integrity, but we don’t see much of that at the upper echelons of Jewish Power(or among brown-nosing white cuck elites). Take Alan Dershowitz in the video below.
Dershowitz says Jews shouldn’t APOLOGIZE for their great power and riches. But that is a mischaracterization. Jews don’t apologize for their power and wealth but DENY it, altogether a different thing. Furthermore, far from apologizing for their power, they ruthlessly wield it to destroy anyone who dares to notice and critique it. If Dershowitz were right about Jews being apologetic about their power, they would (1) admit they got it and (2) would try to defend why/how they got it (3) swear to use it wisely and humanely (4) acknowledge their abuses of power and make amends. But where do we see this? Where do we see Jews APOLOGIZING for their power? If anything, the Jewish DENIAL of power is a way of flaunting their power, i.e. “if you goyim say otherwise, we will totally destroy you with the power that we, LOL and ROTFL, don’t have.” Far from Dershowitz’s characterization of rich and powerful Jews as defensive and sorry, they are aggressive, vicious, and nasty toward anyone who wants an honest discussion and accounting of the power.
But it’s worse than that. Dershowitz says Jewish Power is totally earned and deserving. Sure, lots of Jews gained success through intelligence and industry, innovation and creativity. And Jews have contributed to world civilization and the US. But that can be said of other groups as well, such as the Anglos and Germans. But does that mean Anglos and Germans were ALL GOOD? Did Anglos and Germans gain all their wealth and success through ethical means? No, and this is true of Jews as well. Jews added a lot to the US but also subtracted a lot. In the 21st century, Jews have been the main instigators of wars, repression, and cultural degeneration. And there are too many Jews like Samuel Bankman-Fried and Big Pharma creeps. Dershowitz speaks of how the rich and powerful Jews are working toward ‘peace’. What? You mean like Ukraine and Syria? The provocations of China over Taiwan? Saber-rattling at Iran and the ongoing tyranny over Palestinians? Dershowitz is high on intelligence but zero on integrity, which destroys the HBD cult of IQ nihilism that looks to Jews as the rightful master race for their remarkable IQ. Intelligence without integrity will be the undoing of humanity.
Some Jews have maintained that, precisely because Jews have suffered so much for so long, they are especially sensitive to injustices around the world and committed to shining the light of truth and compassion on all corners of the world. By and large, however, the main Jewish lesson from their history seems to be either vengeful or nihilistic, either “We must destroy and subjugate the goyim for what they’ve done to us” or “Now it’s our turn to get what’s ours as we have the power.” Just ask the Palestinians or any number of unfortunate Arabs/Muslims whose lives have been destroyed as the result of a narrow-minded US foreign policy predicated solely on appeasing Zion, but then what do you expect when the educated white elites are mostly composed of brown-nosing cuck maggots. Today, a white bumpkin is likely to have more sense than a high status white.
But then, do white hicks have any chance against Jewish city slickers with a long experience of global networking? The only whites with any real chance of pushing back against Jewish Power were the white urbanites, the white city slickers. Most of the money, talent, connections, resources, power, institutions, and etc. are concentrated in cities. Historically, rural folks had no chance against city folks. And there was a time when the Anglo-American city folks pushed back against, competed with, or balanced out the Jewish Power. And over time, there was also a pan-Christian cooperation between Anglo-Americans and Other-European-Americans (many of whom were Catholic) against Jewish Power. There was also competition in academia between whites and Jews.
But at some point, urban and/or intellectual whites all caved to Jewish Power, and that meant the only whites left to do any kind of pushing back were the small town folks and hicks (or rural folks). White urbanites (and even suburbanites) are now largely brown-nosing cuck-maggots of Jews, and the combined firepower of Jewish Power and Cuck support has essentially doomed the Republicans as the party of hapless hicks (who found out the hard way who controls the centers of power after the January 6 fiasco).
Anyway, the problem with victimology is the over-emphasis on the victim-aspect of a group’s identity. It fails to understand that all of humanity have been victimizers and the victimized, just like all people experience both birth and death. True, some groups have been defeated far worse than other groups. Surely, entire tribes and clans were wiped out in history. Entire civilizations were ground to dust. Many American Indian tribes and the Australian Aborigines were effectively wiped out. And the brown indigenous folks in Latin America still live under mostly white rule.
But even such cases were the products of power dynamics than Good vs Evil. Whites prevailed over the American Indians not because the former was especially evil while the latter were saintly and peaceful but because one side was far more advantaged than the other in manpower, organization, technology, and industry. It was rarely the case in history that one people lost to another people because they were just too good and virtuous, thus unwilling to shed blood even as others shed it without remorse. And if such people did exist, they were wiped out too fast for anyone to remember.
Some may argue that the current West is in such a condition as too many ‘decent’ whites are committed to ‘tolerance’, ‘compassion’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘anti-racism’ to do anything about the mass-migration-invasion, black thuggery, and etc. In other words, the white race has become like the victim-nun in Abel Ferrara’s BAD LIEUTENANT who, in the name of Christ’s example of love and forgiveness, refuses to accuse the young men who raped her.
But, such characterization is dubious. More likely, too many whites are either clueless (as their brains are addled with usual garbage spewed by MSM), cowardly, or cucked to the supremacism of Jews. Take the Germans for instance. How can a people committed to eternal atonement for the Holocaust possibly support the Neocons wars in the Middle East that destroyed countries (like the Nazis once did in Eastern Europe), the Sub-Nazis in Ukraine, and Israel’s genocidal rhetoric (and actions) against the Palestinians? Either the Germans are simpleminded idiots who idolize Jews as the Eternal Victims (who are always right no matter what they do) or craven dogs who fearfully toe the Jewish line at every turn on account of Zion-controlled US being the lone superpower.
Germans simply went from “Heil Hitler” to “Heil Juden”. In their idol-worship of Jews, it appears the tragedy of the Holocaust wasn’t that ‘six million people’ were killed but ‘six million Jews’, implying that German guilt wouldn’t have been all that serious had the Nazis killed any other people than the Jews. For sure, even though World War II claimed 27 million lives in Russia/Soviet Union, Germany feels zero guilt about feeding weapons to the sub-Nazi lunatics in Ukraine brainwashed with vulgarized SS dogma to kill Russians as ‘untermensch’.
Victimology infects every aspect of Western society and culture. With Jews and blacks (and even homos) having gotten so much mileage out of crying victim all the time, it’s only natural that other groups would either try to forge their own ‘victim’ narratives and/or align with the most idolized ‘victim’ groups, of course, Jews, blacks, and homos.
Even though victimology is usually associated with the Left, the Right has its own shtick as well, especially in white-knighting for the Jews, ironic as the Jews are the main tormentors and defamers of whites. If most non-white groups, having no ‘iconic’ victim narratives of their own, sidle up to blacks and homos as darlings of the hour, whites (having no victim status of their own) try to gain associative-victim points by praising and apologizing for Jews as the best of the best, the greatest of the greatest, the most tragic of the tragic, and etc., which is rather funny since the greatest Jewish tragedies, at least according to Jewish historiography, mostly happened in the West.
White ‘rightists’ and ‘conservatives’, even while griping about ‘victimology’, assume that Jews are the most tragic (and eternal) victim group of all time, therefore it’s the moral priority of whites to always be on the lookout for ‘antisemitism’ and do everything they can to defend the Jews from the ‘new nazis’, which could be anyone from a skinhead (usually a ‘fed’) or a Palestinian enraged about having his/her house stolen by Jewish ‘settlers’ who believe themselves to be of the Chosen Master Race.
White ‘conservatives’ who generally denigrate victimology cannot get enough of Jewish victimology and feel themselves justified and ennobled in their endless apologia for whatever Jews do… because, of course, Jews are the forever Holy Holocaust people. It’s a convenient way to blame the Non-West for ‘antisemitism’ that was almost exclusively a Western/European phenomenon, i.e. “We whites were so wrong about Jews in the past by calling them ‘Christ-killers’ and the like and expelling them from one place to another, but we’ve been totally reformed to love, respect, and worship Jews, and that makes us better than the non-West that won’t likewise grovel at the Jews’ feet.”
Whites don’t play white-victimhood (not least because Jewish Power has made whiteness and victimizer virtually synonymous), but they sure feed off on Jewish Victimology. So, when Jewish Zionists massacre countless Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, whites yawn or laugh, but when counter-violence hurts some Jews, whites wallow and wail in orgies of Jewish Victimology. Either whites are retarded Jew-worshipers or cynical grovelers to the rich and powerful, though I suppose they could be both.
Even though victimology comes across as the championing of the powerless against the powerful, it is the powerful that decides the victimological framework. While anyone or any group can make a victimological claim, for any victimology to gain traction and momentum, it has to be favored and disseminated far and wide by the powers-that-be. Thus, victimology is a kind of a political paradox. You have to be the victor to determine who is the victim.
Not only does victimology favor certain groups over others but it lays out which group can be vilified. ‘Villainology’ is a key ingredient to victimology, indeed both are two sides of the same coin. As the Power, in its cunning and ruthlessness, is most concerned with keeping or expanding its authority and influence, it regards victimology’s main value as an instrument of control. China’s victimological narrative about the ‘hundred years of humiliation’ is a comic book history designed to justify the power of the CCP as the force that finally led China to stand up in the world. Never mind that the Chinese civilization had been sagged with intransigence & stagnation and that Western Imperialism, while certainly brutal and exploitative, tore down the old rotten edifice to make way for the new. Also, CCP under Mao victimized countless Chinese for reasons that defy sense. But even with China now risen as a formidable power, the CCP still runs with the simplistic narrative. Russia has done better by balancing the tragedies that befell the country as the result of outside forces (especially the Nazi German invasion) with its own failings under Tsarism, Bolshevism, and Yeltsinism. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said of Russians and Jews, there’s plenty of blame to go around for both groups. Of course, Jews refuse to listen and lay all the problems of JQ squarely at the feet of goyim.
Victimology not only favors certain groups over others but usually specifies which groups may be blamed. It is to the Power’s advantage to especially target certain groups that are viewed with suspicion, anxiety, or alarm. Take black victims, for instance. Any sensible person knows that most blacks are victimized by blacks, and, if anything, white police presence has saved innumerable black lives. But black victimhood at the hands of blacks isn’t useful to the Power that is Jewish, which feeds on White Submission that comes by the way of ‘white guilt’, especially in relation to blacks who are deemed by many whites as the naturally superior race of the ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ types; therefore, whites are more prone to feel guilty about what was done to blacks.
Even though Donald Trump has always been staunchly pro-Zionist and partnered with Jewish associates, his America First MAGA movement alarmed many Jews that whites may finally be waking up to their own identity and interests, meaning that whites, with the revival of their pride and agency, may act independently of the Jewish Agenda, indeed even against it. Then, it’s no wonder that, especially following 2016 with Trump’s presidency and the energy around the Alt Right, the Jews drove very hard with the anti-white rhetoric by activating all sectors of the academia, media, deep state, and soccer mommery to be on the lookout for ‘white supremacism’.
As for the term ‘pride’, it became synonymous with the Jewish-backed globo-homo movement. And to quell any nation of majority-dominance, Jews even pushed tranny-tyranny to teach women the lesson that trannies are more deserving of adoration and respect than real women. And of course, there was BLM, funded to new heights following the death of George Floyd who most likely died of drug overdose than police brutality. As for the fact of blacks-killing-blacks, just chalk it up to ‘systemic racism’. You see, due to the long history of racial oppression/discrimination, blacks are still mentally unbalanced and prone to violence, and it’s all the fault of the white man who must give more to the likes of Ibrahim Kendi. And, when blacks go around attacking Asians in New York, it too is somehow the fault of MAGA and ‘white supremacists’. And if Muslim Congresswomen have issues with the Zionist Lobby, as in the cases of certain remarks made by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the coalition must be made to come together and circle the wagons by once again invoking ‘white supremacism’. And when mostly leftist-types and nonwhites protested the massive bombings of Gaza by the Israeli Air Force, the rat-like Jonathan Greenblatt blamed ‘white supremacists’ for the anti-Zionist rhetoric.
Under communism, just about everything was blamed on the ‘bourgeoisie’ or ‘bourgeois elements’ while Marxism-Leninism could never be blamed for the problems it caused. And in the West, villainology or vilification must never be directed at Jews, blacks, or homos. So, if Jews exploited black entertainers and athletes, just pretend ‘white people’ did it. And even if the hardcore Zionists are really responsible for all those dead people in the Near East and North Africa, the blame tends to go to ‘neocons’, a term that doesn’t distinguish between the tribal formulators of the foreign policy and their goy-cuck-clubbers. For many people, the face of ‘neoconservatism’ is still George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.
When it comes to the Politics of Victimhood, we need to be reminded of certain basic truths.
1. Victimhood is always contextual even though context is rationalized to victimize others. The more specific and relevant the context, the more useful it is. It’s true that the Hamas attackers victimized Jews in Israel, but as the UN Secretary General said, it didn’t just happen out of the blue. It’s not as if some Palestinians just woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to go Jew-hunting for the hell of it. It is a resistance against the ongoing Zionist occupation and colonization of the West Bank. Minus such a context, of course Jews would seem to be pure-as-snow victims of Palestinian brutality. It’d be like the Japanese crying foul about what they suffered in World War II without ever mentioning what they did to reap the whirlwind. In the US, there is the oft-heard remark, “Israel has a right to exist” without ever mentioning that Israel’s founding owed to the extinction of Palestine.
Of course, context isn’t enough and can often be abused. It’s true that Palestinians deserve justice, but using that as rationale for carrying out terrorist attacks that target obvious civilians, as happened at the Munich Olympics, is morally risible. Likewise, some of the bombings against Germany and Japan carried out by the Allies in World War II are morally dubious given their lack of clear military objectives. They were meant to terrorize civilian populations.
Furthermore, context must have an extinction date. While we can understand the American Indians using violence against the white encroachers given the broader context of ‘Manifest Destiny’, such a context would make no sense if some American Indian today hacked some white guy to pieces with a tomahawk on account of ‘muh ancestors’. At some point, humanity has to say “what’s done is done” and move on. Don’t forget the past but don’t keep rehashing it to justify totally useless violence.
While American Indians have buried their hatchets (or tomahawks as the case may be), outdated abuse of context is still invoked by blacks (urged on by Jewish Power, of course, that is hellbent on using Black History to bait ‘white guilt’ into the foreseeable future). So, even though current black criminality is mainly the product of black genetics — BAMMAMA factor, or Blacks Are More Muscular and More Aggressive due to matters of evolution alongside hippos and hyenas, therefore more likely to prey upon the weaker and slower races as ‘prey’ material — , we are to believe that it’s the legacy of slavery. And even though blacks have assaulted, raped, robbed, and murdered countless whites since the 1960s, we are still stuck in the Emmett Till narrative, semi-bogus as, despite the murder of Till, he was no angel but a lowlife punk who behaved in ways that understandably riled up white anger — surely, if some white boy acted that way to a black woman in any ‘hood, black mobs would lynch him 1000x time over, and most ‘woke’ white wibby-dibs would defend the violence as racial justice against the ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ white boy who didn’t properly respect a black woman.
2. Victimhood is never permanent. It is a condition and a phase, like youth. You don’t stay young forever, and you don’t remain a victim forever. History obviously bears this out. Romans conquered and victimized many peoples but were eventually conquered and crushed in turn. It’s been said Julius Caesar’s armies may have wiped out up to a third of the Germanic Barbarian population, but it wasn’t long before the Germanic barbarians were running amok in Rome. Britain was conquered by Romans and then by other tribes and kingdoms. Eventually, what came to be known as the British got their house in order and were able to fend off invaders. In time, Britain came to conquer other peoples, indeed close to a quarter of the world. What idiot would say that the Germanic Barbarians pillaging and burning Rome were still ‘victims’? What fool would say that the British Imperialists were still victims because, long ago, their island had been conquered by foreign armies?
Christianity, by sanctifying the victimhood of the saints, started the process of turning victimhood into something close to a permanent status. Christian mentality became addicted to the holy-schmoly high of victim-sanctimony. That said, the saving grace of Christianity was the reminder to be mindful of one’s transgressions onto others. It’s not only about ‘poor me’ but ‘poor you’.
Holocaustianity, in contrast, though borrowing from Christian victimology, operates with a different set of rules. If Christian morality is largely at the level of individual conscience — being Christian isn’t enough to be saved if you’re a lowlife lout and punk — , Holocaustian morality is largely at the tribal level. According to Holocaustianity, it’s enough for a person to be a Jew (at least one who circles the tribal wagons) to be sacralized eternally as a holy victim. Thus, whereas Christianity not only makes a fuss about Christian victimhood but about the victimhood of the Other by sinful Christians, Holocaustians only see the victimhood of Jews (and their favored allies and proxies of the hour) but have no concern about the victimhood of the Other, especially if perpetrated by Jews themselves.
Post-WWII, Jews were no longer victims. They emerged as one of the great powers in the new world order and, in time, they became the top power in the world as the new lords of the US as the lone superpower. It’s one thing for Jews to remember and commemorate the victimization of their brethren at the hands of goyim but quite another to carry on as if their victimhood is a permanent fixture of their identity because of the Holocaust, which has been shamelessly abused to rationalize any Jewish agenda. Just think. Even if the Holocaust Narrative is 100% true, how can it justify the destruction of the Palestinians who had NOTHING to do with World War II? Imagine Bill being angry about Bob having beaten him up and going off to pummel Harry into a pulp on account of Bob having kicked him around. Holocaust cannot justify Zionism, even more so since the Zionist project preceded Hitler’s birth.
VOX DAY
3. There’s the duality of victimizer and victimized. In nature, an animal may prey on others but may itself be preyed upon. Even poor and wretched humans feed on other lifeforms, which is why vegans regard all meat-eaters as ‘oppressors’ and ‘murderers’. A slave whipped by his master may go home and brutalize his wife and children. One could be a little bully pushed around by a big bully. In many cases, a local empire could be part of a larger empire.
Also, a people can live under tyranny of another but also benefit from the tyranny. Ireland was under British rule or ‘tyranny’ for a long time, but the Irish also came to greatness under the British-Anglo imperial umbrella that opened vast horizons for Irish settlers, adventurers, merchants, and artists. Blacks have a history of oppression in the US but also participated and profited from the US empire. All those blacks risen high in the US military take part in the global empire that has destroyed entire regions around the world. Thus, blacks have a story of oppression under whites but also a story of oppression alongside whites directed against the world. For sure, not many blacks took the knee for all the people they butchered in Vietnam and Iraq. Blacks complain that they are the biggest victims of US history but benefited greatly from the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians as they got to stretch across the great big continent to find work and housing. Also, under slavery, they were taken from a savage state and placed in a civilized realm, thus coming in contact with human advances unknown and inconceivable to the Sub-Saharan Ugabugans.
Same goes for Jews. In some ways, Jews were often met with hostility in the Christian West that distrusted them as either Christ-killers, unscrupulous merchants, or smarter people who made goyim green with envy. But Jews also reaped tons of advantages by living in the West, and their financial power played a sizable role in Western Imperialism. Jews may have been called ‘kike’ but also funded the imperial projects in which whites called others ‘niggers’, ‘wogs’, ‘chinks’, and ‘ragheads’. Jews experienced the duality of the victimizer and victimized in the West. Big Dumb Polacks stole their lunch money, but they ate the lunch of dumb goyim easy to outwit. So, the notion that some people should ONLY be regarded as ‘victims’ is ridiculous.
Besides, the characterization of ‘victimhood’ depends on the ideology. According to ‘wokeness’, all whites, even or especially the white working class with their ‘deplorable’ attitudes, are tyrannical victimizers. But according to Marxism, the white working class are the fellow victims or the oppressed alongside non-white working class of the exploitative and oppressive bourgeoisie (of whatever color).
4. Victimization comes with benefits and even has liberating aspects. The West may have humiliated China for a hundred years, but the demise of the Old Order led to Chinese renewal and awakening in many areas. While blacks in bondage were oppressed by whites, they were also ‘liberated’ from uga-buga savagery.
While empires victimized whole swaths of foreign peoples, they also had the effect of weakening local tyrannies. True, the defeat at the hands of the US was humiliating for Japan, but, in some ways, the three following decades were among the finest in Japanese history. And it must be said the Palestinians who managed to remain in Israel Proper didn’t do so badly in terms of living standards and access to modern amenities. It’s the Monty Python Rule: “What have the Romans ever done for us?” The British Empire certainly had lots of beneficial effects on the world. Sadly, the essence of Western Influence today is celebration of Sodomy, worship of Negrolatry, and cucking to Zion.
5. Victimology is no basis for the brotherhood of man or the sisterhood of woman (though with globo-homo and tranny-tyranny, it could be the brotherhood of woman and the sisterhood of man). Following World War II and the anti-imperialist national liberation movements, there was a time when much of the Third World dreamed of a brotherhood of color against the white world. But apart from the similar experiences of having lived under Western rule, they had little in common. It made even less sense with Latin America as it was still ruled by Spanish and various European elites. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were not Amazonian Indians. Also, once the European Imperialist peace-enforcers were gone, the non-white world soon realized they had lots of squabbles of their own. Han Chinese vs Tibetans. Hindus and Muslims in India, a part of which would splinter into Pakistan. To this day, India’s biggest enemy is Pakistan and vice versa. There were so many conflicts in the Arab World that the US and the USSR had a field day playing off one bunch of ‘camel jockeys’ against another. And it was even crazier in Sub-Saharan Africa where the newly minted countries made absolutely no sense and led to endless conflicts among the tribes. Also, the non-white vs white dichotomy couldn’t be sustained, especially as the US and the USSR, two great white powers, vied for alliances with the non-white world. China became a bitter rival of India that grew closer to the USSR. One Arab state could lean close to the US while another to the USSR. Egypt under Nassser was close to the USSR but under Sadat switched to the US. The Latin American Left looked to Soviet support while others looked to US backing.
With so many nonwhites in conflict with other nonwhites, the ideals laid down at the Bandung Conference became a pipedream. One people’s empowerment could often mean the opposite for another, e.g. Kurds certainly didn’t enjoy the Arab power under Saddam Hussein of Iraq. What Hindus in India value as their own cultural revival makes Muslims there very nervous. The West played on grievances in Syria against the Alawite ruling minority to ignite the Syrian War.
In the US, Jewish Power has sought to unite Diversity and (white) Cuckery against white folks in general, and it’s part of the official dogma of DEI. But in actuality, non-black minorities would much rather work and live with whites than deal with Crazy Negroes. Arab-Americans are solidly in the Democratic camp, but they sure don’t see eye to eye with the Jews who fund and control the Party. Some of these identity politics are downright dumb. Whites from Latin America can count as ‘people of color’. Arabs, a Caucasian people, are lumped together with indigenous browns, Hindus, and Chinese as ‘people of color’.
While the divide-and-conquer strategy that white imperialists used against non-whites was problematic, no less is the unite-and-condemn strategy of the so-called ‘intersectional wokeness’. Are we really to believe that billionaire Manhattan Jews, Mexican-American peons, Arab-American grocers, black criminal class, Chinese math nerds, Hindu computer geeks, Orthodox Muslims, Cuban Anti-Castroites, various Latin American Che-Guevara-fanboys, Palestinian-Americans, deep state homos, and drag-queen story-hour trannies have much in common as FELLOW-VICTIMS of the ‘Cis-White-Male Patriarchs’? Sure, Only in America.
Victimization will forever be with us as the world is full of power imbalances. Just as some individuals with too much power and too little conscience victimize others, some states grown big and powerful will be tempted to bully and exploit others. Acknowledging such isn’t the problem, and indeed the UN was created in the name of honoring and protecting all nations, no matter how poor and weak. It was about equal dignity for all peoples. The community of nations is to survey the world and call out against abuses of power, the kinds that festered into major wars in the first half of the 20th century.
But our understanding of victimization and victimhood must not be allowed to grow into the cancer of victimology whereby some groups define their identities mainly through victimhood status, which in time becomes permanently etched in their psyche (and in that of their cuck minions). Jewish victimology has led to the Jewish attitude that whatever they do is justified, i.e. if Simon Wiesenthal hunted Nazis, the Neolib/Neocon Jews hunt ‘new nazis’, rather odd when they’re allied with sub-Nazi elements in Ukraine.
With goy cuck-maggots in dog-like devotion to Jewish Victimology, the white brown-nosers of both parties do little but call for more support for Jews and Israel when, in truth, any sane person should know by now that if World War III happens, it will have been 80% due to Jewish megalomania and paranoia. To save the world, victimology must go. No group has the right to declare itself as the forever-victim as it only serves as a license to do as it pleases under the cover of ironclad victimhood.
