Quote:

---

Jews* and Competitive Victimhood
Brenton Sanderson
... Jews* have assiduously (and successfully) cultivated the notion they have always been, and remain, a cruelly-persecuted victim group deserving of everyone’s profound sympathy. The “Holocaust” narrative has, of course, been central to this endeavor. The ... virtues of racial diversity and multiculturalism has been erected on the moral foundations of “the Holocaust.” White people cannot be recognized as a group with interests because “never again.” Western nations have a moral obligation to accept unlimited non-White immigration because “never again.” Whites should meekly accept their deliberate displacement (and ultimate extinction) because “never again.”

Numerous studies have demonstrated the power that can accrue to individuals and groups who successfully cultivate their status as victims and underdogs. Social psychologists have labelled the tendency to see one’s group as having suffered more than an outgroup as “competitive victimhood.” While conflicting groups have engaged in competitive victimhood for centuries, this is largely a modern phenomenon that should be understood against the backdrop of contemporary culture. Friedrich Nietzsche remains the first and best theorist of competitive victimhood, proposing that historical developments in Western culture, ranging from Christianity to the Enlightenment, led to a reversal of values where old notions of “might makes right” were transformed. Today, our knee-jerk reaction to powerful groups is to assume they are immoral and corrupt, while members of victimized groups are assumed to be innocent and morally superior.

---

Quote:

---

Activist [outgroups] are acutely aware of the power of competitive victimhood in contemporary culture, and much of the research into the subject has been carried out in Israel. A study by Schnabel and colleagues found that groups are motivated to engage in competitive victimhood for two reasons: the need for moral identity [ethical cohesion and rationalization] and the need for social power.

With regards to the first motivation, people generally associate victimization with innocence. Therefore, if one’s ingroup ‘wins’ the victim status, it means that it is also perceived as moral. With regards to the second motivation, people generally view victims as entitled for compensation. Therefore, if one’s ingroup ‘wins’ the victim status, it means that it is entitled to various resources such as policies to empower it or higher budgets. Groups struggle over both power (budgets, influence, etc.) and moral identity (i.e., group members typically see themselves as ‘the good guys’ and members of the other group as ‘the bad guys’). This struggle makes them engage in competitive victimhood.[1]

These studies, often framed around the difficulties presented to Israel by the victim status of the Palestinians, shed light on the psychological motivations behind attempts to gain acknowledgement that one’s ingroup has been subjected to more injustice than an adversarial social group. The findings show that desire for power plays a key role, and that victimhood experiences (real, perceived or fabricated) have far-reaching consequences for the relations between groups, and “especially in contexts where material and social resources are scarce, group members actively attempt to affirm that one’s own group has been victimized more than the other.”[2]

Given the group evolutionary stakes involved, it’s unsurprising that discourse in many countries is often characterized by competitive victimhood—of different social groups competing over who suffers more. Young and Sullivan note that competitive victimhood is an adaptive behavior through which “groups can unilaterally achieve greater group cohesiveness, provide justification for violence performed in the past, reduce feelings of responsibility for harm doing, increase perceived control through the elicitation of social guilt from the outgroup, and elicit support from third parties.”[3]

The political and economic (and therefore biological) benefits derived from competitive victimhood account for the ubiquity of Jewish* victim narratives in contemporary Western culture, and why Jewish* historiography is replete with exaggerated accounts of historical calamities, persecution, exile, deportations, and pogroms. According to the standard Jewish account, the biblical Pharaoh, Amalek, and Haman of Persia all attempted to annihilate the Jews, followed by a long sequence of enemies, massacres, deportations, inquisitions, and pogroms. Through this lachrymose Jewish victimhood prism, “the Holocaust” is just the latest in this series of recurring victimizations...

This Jewish* victimhood mentality is nourished by socialization processes that teach Jews* “that victimhood has potential gains, and that aggressiveness can be legitimate and just if one party has suffered from its adversary.”[4]

---

Quote:

---

In Israel, Jewish* victimhood-oriented socialization begins as early as kindergarten and Israeli children are taught that Israelis suffer more than Palestinians, and that they have to protect themselves and fight for their very existence.[5]

---

Quote:

---

... Studies have found that a focus on an ingroup’s victimization (real or perceived) reduces sympathy toward the adversary allegedly responsible for this victimization, as well as toward unrelated adversaries.[8] A group completely preoccupied with its own suffering can develop an “egotism of victimhood” where members are unable to see things from the perspective of the rival group, are unable or unwilling to empathize with the suffering of the rival group, and are unwilling to accept any responsibility for harm inflicted by their own group.

---

Quote:

---

Researchers questioned Israeli Jews* [*also applies to other self-identified victims groups] about their memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, and found their “consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.”[9] They found a close connection between that collective memory and the memory of “past persecution of Jews” and the Holocaust. That is, the more deeply Israeli Jews have internalized a narrative of historic Jewish persecution, the less sympathy they have for Palestinians. It was this victimhood lens that led Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, on the eve of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, to declare “The alternative to this is Treblinka.’”

... For instance, Jewish Canadians who were reminded of the Holocaust accepted less collective guilt for Jews’ harmful actions toward Palestinians than those not reminded of it.[16]

---

Quote:

---

Individuals who identify more strongly with their ingroup engage ever more fiercely in competitive victimhood... Moreover:

Perceiving one’s own group as the primary victim of the conflict can reduce feelings of guilt that arise when people witness misdeeds perpetrated by ingroup members. By the same token, it may help to rationalize and legitimize acts of revenge against rivals, especially in the post-conflict era. Finally, portraying one’s own group as the “real” victim of the conflict may also serve material purposes, as it frames the group the worthy recipient of sympathy and assistance. Thus, encouraging the perception of one’s own group as the victim may enhance the possibility of receiving moral and practical support from the international community. For all these reasons, it is no wonder that each of the parties involved in a conflict makes great efforts to persuade themselves, rivals, and third parties that their suffering has been the greatest.

A strong sense of collective victimhood

---

Quote:

---

... is associated with a low willingness to forgive and an increased desire for revenge. The research shows that people with heightened victimhood express “an increased desire for revenge rather than mere avoidance, and actually were more likely to behave in a revengeful manner.” Such individuals and groups “tend to see their use of violence and aggression as more moral and justified, while seeing the use of violence of the outgroup as unjustified and morally wrong.”[18]

---

Quote:

---

... while the stated mission of the Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is to make Australia a “better place” by “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism,” when it comes to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians this supposed commitment to “inclusion,” “diversity” and “multiculturalism” [tolerance] suddenly gives way to hardnosed ... realism.

---

Quote:

---

This rank hypocrisy (and barely-concealed malice) is standard across the gamut of [victim] activist organizations in the West....

Jewish competitive victimhood accounts for the fact that, since 1945, over 150 feature films have been made about “the Holocaust” while the number of films that have been made about the genocide of millions of Eastern Europeans can be counted on one hand—and none have been produced by Hollywood.

Jewish* activists not only engage in competitive victimhood on behalf of their ingroup (while suppressing all counter-narratives), but wage competitive victimhood on behalf of other non-White groups (except, of course, for the Palestinians and other groups opposed to Israel)...

An instructive example of Jews engaging in competitive victimhood on behalf of non-Whites concerns Australia’s Aborigines. Jewish intellectual activists Tony Barta and Colin Tatz, for example, originated the “genocide charge” against White Australians, and have largely succeeded in ensuring that “genocide is now in the vocabulary of Australian politics.” Barta insists that “all white people in Australia” are implicated in a “relationship of genocide” with Aborigines even if they (or their ancestors) lacked any such intention, had only benevolent interactions with Aborigines, or no contact with Aborigines at all.

---

Quote:

---

When colonial, and later state and federal governments implemented policies designed to protect Aboriginal people, “genocide” was, for Barta, still “inherent in the very nature of the society.” He advocates this be the “credo taught to every generation of schoolchildren—the key recognition of Australia as a nation founded on genocide.”[28]

Barta’s activism inspired Colin Tatz who, embracing and weaponizing the bogus notion of the “Stolen Generations,” claimed that as a result of “the public’s first knowledge of the wholesale removal of Aboriginal children, the dreaded ‘g’ word is firmly with us,” affirming that the “purpose of my university and public courses” is “to keep it here.”[29] The Sydney Jewish Museum is proudly playing its part in training Australian teachers “not only about the Holocaust” but also about “the Australian genocide.”

---

Quote:

---

Inevitably, Barta and Tatz liken rejection of, or even ambivalence toward, their assertion that “Australia is a nation built on genocide” to “Holocaust denial.” In deploying the “genocide” charge against [EXTANT, not longdead] White Australians, they seek to exert the same kind of psychological leverage used to such devastating effect against Germans, who, as Tatz notes, are “weighed down by the Schuldfrage (guilt question)” to such an extent that “guilt, remorse, shame permeate today’s Germany.”[30] ...

Conclusion

“Competitive victimhood” is a useful intellectual framework for conceptualizing a key strand of [outgroup] activism and can be viewed as an important aspect of ... group evolutionary strategy. This strategy is multipronged: promote [outgroup] as the world’s foremost victims...; aggressively suppress all narratives that challenge this status (particularly those that accurately represent [outgroup] as victimizers; and, finally, engage in competitive victimhood on behalf of [outgroup] groups against [perceived ingroups] simultaneously seeking to deny the latter any positive collective identity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Competitive Victimhood = Oppression Olympics

--------------------------------------------------

And he who is not sufficiently courageous to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his ‘progressive’ views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a distinguished figure or a general. Let him say to himself: I am a part of the herd and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and kept warm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup.

Here's a math class in our brave new world of CRT and Competitive Victimhood.

Note that this video was made in 2015, by a "POC", before "woke" was part of the American Lexicon.

--------------------------------------------------

And he who is not sufficiently courageous to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his ‘progressive’ views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a distinguished figure or a general. Let him say to himself: I am a part of the herd and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and kept warm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup.

Here's a math class in our brave new world of CRT and Competitive Victimhood.

Note that this video was made in 2015, by a "POC", before "woke" was part of the American Lexicon.

--------------------------------------------------

And he who is not sufficiently courageous to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his ‘progressive’ views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a distinguished figure or a general. Let him say to himself: I am a part of the herd and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and kept warm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
One of the concepts in this thread sounds like Rooting For The Underdog...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: You know I root for the underdog, right?

And I'm pretty aware of when "things" aren't "fair", and I post about it when they happen, right?

I mean, if Palestinians and Libyans and Syrians and Yemenis and women in most of the "global south" aren't "underdogs", then who is?

But you don't escape "underdog" category by whining "It's not fair". OF COURSE it's not fair! TPTB are TPTB bc they TOOK power, unfairly. Do you think whining about it is going to get it back?

What TPTB ARE willing to give out are small favors and privileges (not fairness). That way they can pit one "victim" against other "victims" and still maintain their power.

You might want to re-read both my tagline (about solving problems, not sharing them) and my signature, about "Pity would be no more if we did not MAKE men poor".


We would need neither competitive victimhood nor pity if we didn't make so many victims to begin with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
hmmmmm. You consider IslamoJudeofascist terrorist jihadi Zionist palestiniansIsraelis to be underdogs.
Spending their entire lives training, hoping, dreaming to kill other humans, just like Germans of a century ago - the modern day Nazis.
Working ferociously toward exterminating the Jewish Palestinian race, with the highest technology and greatest eficiency possible- also copying Nazis.
Attacking defenseless civilians with overwhelming force, also copying Nazis.
A mass of barbarians defying the norms of civilization, also copying Nazis.

I always considered Nazis, and Kaiser Wilhelm before them, to be bullies in the story.

Walk like Nazis, quack like Nazis, act like Nazis, sound like Nazis, must make Palestinians Israelis the modern day Nazis.

blah blah blah ... blah blah blah

---