The power of victimhood - and why it self-destructs [TL;DR warning]
Barely any day, if any at all, passes by these days when there is nothing is reported in TV, news papers (and their online publications) or on social media having articles, opinion pieces, reports, comments or posts from people leading a war of victimhood. First world feminists that proclaim all-out war against the "Patriarchy", BLM supporters doing the same with "white supremacists" or SJWs going on about a "vast right-wing conspiracy". In the halls of government, the Democrats talk about the never ending fairy tale of "Russian collusion", most MSM outlets talk about "fake news" or "alternative facts". But what do all these things have in common? They exist to appeal to empathy and kindness from people who do not deserve any pity thrown down the hole they dug themselves down into. These people try to use the Achilles heel of morally superior societies:
The power of victimhood
Base explanation
Before anything, let me clear up one thing: The majority of people as society is right now in western first world nations, even among those that are mentioned (looking at the main image women, black or non-binary people and minorities) are not doing this. Many are swept along with those that do. This is also a warning to them, about what the actions of their peers who use the power of victimhood will bring upon them as well.
So what exactly is victimhood? It certainly, in historic proportions, is something new. It didn't exist in a this widespread version in any period other than modern times. Though it's hard to say when it got from carefully and strategically selected opportunities to simply all-out spreading at every opportunity, I'd estimate that we've seen this in the last 10-20 years. Proceeding: Let's crack it down into its elements and see what it's made of.
Victimhood is when a person on purpose displays him or herself as a vulnerable victim in need for support. In the past, and by that I mean when it wasn't everywhere, you might have used to garner support from people known not to exploit weakness, but only on very few occasions as, if one was seen as too weak, others would simply come and do whatever they wanted with you and your property. In the past it was important to have the image of being strong and tough so that most would think twice about a challenge with you. Basically, it was survival of the fittest and image was worth being held up, even if there was nothing to back it up. So what has changed?
In modern times, people have (and this is a good thing!) adopted empathy and supporting the weak is something positive throughout society. I am sure that if the people of my country would see me starving on the side of a road, they'd help. I'm not sure how much of a percentage, but I'd say 99,9%. It's an instinct. And while this was similar, though most likely lower in the past, it has spread from life threatening (when survival was tough) and general helping (as neighbors or a clan) all the way down to extended social welfare. Basically, as the general material wealth of people rises they are more prone to help others in less dangerous situations, as what is spent on helping is worth less of the sum of what the helper owns (and once again, this is a good thing!).
However, it creates a problem: When people start realizing that having the image of being weak and in need of help showers them in gifts, this is exploited. In the past, phase 1, most people would act stronger than they were to not appear as a weak target. Then, phase 2, people started to act their strength and be honest about their needs. Now, phase 3, many have started to act below their strength to get what they want not by need or merit, but simply through the pity of others. These three stages exist so far, our current societies in western first world nations are on the verge of transitioning from phase 2 to 3.
The path of victimology
Some of you may now thing "Wait what? If I only act as if I needed something, people would gift it to me? Cool, I'll use that!", but if you remain until the end of this blog, I'll explain where this path will in the end lead to. Let's do it with an example:
Feminist F from a western first world nation is fighting the "Patriarchy" in her country, knowing full well that it doesn't exist there. It would be a different story if it was in let's say Saudi Arabia. There she could actually fight it, but in order to do so she would also have to appear on the radar of the Saudi regime which would probably kill or enslave her in a harem. But F is not after improving the world, F is using victimology for her personal gain.
What she knows is that almost everyone on her country despises the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, and that equal rights between genders have become the norm. So if a woman were to claim she would be oppressed by a Patriarchy, there would be others that would join her in trying to abolish it, even though it might not even exist. There will be many more that look at it and realize it's a scam, but the loudest lie becomes the new truth. So what she, and many others like her do, is go out and search all possible signs of evidence. They need not be conclusive, but simply something to put on a cover page.
Prime example: The gender pay gap. I'll probably make a blog about this in the future, but for now know: It's got to do with men simply being more prone to get high-grade jobs than women. But it fares well if one only looks at the statistics and sees that the total income of women in the workforce per capita is lower than that of the men. The next step is claiming that this is not due to any other factor than inequality and blame it onto an enemy, which in almost any case is everyone not supporting the movement. In many victimology scenarios one is either an ally or the enemy, with neutral no longer being allowed.
What she and the people convinced by this and other "evidence" then do is cry out to everyone, hoping to gain enough support in the public and, what is more important, in politics. The average supporter only exists to amplify the voice of F and her allies, but the people in power is who she intends to reach. Once that goal is satisfied, the next stage is activated: From gathering support to accumulating benefits.
Let's assume that in a country men per capita were to get 5% more than women. Not due to men receiving any bonus women are denied, it's simply because more men occupy higher paying jobs they got on merit. This is how in reality the gender pay gap, or at least a large part of it comes to be. But F and her allies have reached the politicians of that country, and they decide to do something about that: Take half of that surplus of what men get and give it to women, in statistical terms equalizing the balance. But what has that done?
Now every man has gotten money taken from them, even though they earned it through work and effort. It instead has been given to women, even those who never advocated for it, even those who saw through the deception and were against it, despite them not working harder or joining higher paying jobs. It was a transfer of wealth that went against merit. But F and her allies have gotten more money for leading a war against a straw man. This is the very real danger that many countries face, some having other measures (affirmative action, women quotas, etc) already implemented.
If there really was an inequality to abolish in our nations, F could get support by any means. All she would have to do is discover it, because in western first world societies, discovering and bringing into the public focus is all one has to do to erase a stain. If the gender pay gap was real and for whatever reason men would get something women would not that had nothing to do with their biological differences, then you can bet your last dime that a large amount of "Meninists" as well as true Libertarians and Constitutionals would join the Feminists and get rid of it.
Why it destroys itself
If you read the title, you know that the path of victimhood will lead to self-destruction. The explanation why is made relatively easy: It's by cannibalization. To elaborate, just look what a future of "Social Justice" would look like, starting by assuming the absolute and admittedly unrealistic worst case scenario. This is not how I imagine the future to look, it is simply how things would go if the worst case would come to be, in order to point out that the road of victimhood always leads to self-destruction and is in no way worth while.
In this scenario, every group that guilts others into supporting them gets their way. Real black supremacists get reparations from all with white skin because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. Feminists have guilted men into giving them free money because of their gender. SJWs managed to make the exact same proportion of the population into the hundreds of "genders" that exist. All of these people have gained things they never deserved in the first place. So what next?
These people have become drunk on the power of victimhood. But now that everyone has equal victim points. The ones who had not intended to ask for help are now in need of and ask for it, there's nobody to give, just all to take. What will happen is that among these groups there will be some who are even more a victim. But once again, there is nobody to give out of free will any more. Some can't, some won't. So all that the professional victims have left is either to be satisfied which, after years of free money and benefits, is something unthinkable, or be more of a victim. Be in more dire straits. A situation that others can't ignore any more. The transition from phase 3 and 2 back to phase 1 and 2 has begun.
This is where people will legitimately hurt themselves in order to receive what they want. The mentality will change from from "I'm unequal to others, they get benefits I don't" to "I've (for example) got a broken leg. I need people to take care of me because I can't do a job.". This is how the cycle will continue all the way through phase 2 back to phase 1, where people that ask for help are in real danger if they do not receive any, with one important difference: Nobody who would be willing to act tough has anything to give any more, they already gave it, and nobody who has something to give is willing to, as they have been receiving it. The atmosphere of giving to those in need has been exploited to death.
Because if there is one thing that anyone should have already experienced it is that people are only capable of the things they attempt to do. Having lived a life of "I'm a victim, give me X" creates what has become know as "learned helplessness", where people lose the mindset of being able to do certain things. They are now, from a mental state, literally unable to do anything. People who have been out of the workforce will, depending on for how long it was, become less and less likely to find work. The mindset of getting up and doing the job, even though it's not necessarily fun or satisfying, but needed for a full stomach and a roof over the head has been replaced by begging from others.
The result will be a drop of productivity to the point where it's back to stealing or dying, a reset of all that civilization has created. And how do you prevent being stolen from? Have a strong image. Something that makes others think twice about stealing from you because if they are caught they get hurt or killed, causing them to seek out the weakest target instead. The cycle completes and starts anew: The strong people will become productive and build a civilization that goes through the phases, hopefully not to only end up this way again.
Again, this does not serve as fear mongering and is something that belongs in literature and fiction. It is to point out to anyone who thinks about abusing other people's help what the collective result will be, and as a warning for others not to fall for victimhood scams.
Conclusion
The best phase was phase 2. Where people would ask for help if they needed it and offer if they could afford to. In that time, people would have a fair transfer of help that doesn't hurt anyone and sustains everyone. This is what civilization should aim for. It is the sole reason why so much wealth is created that people can afford not only to help those in dire need, but to grant a decent state of living to others.