"Whine less; breathe more" in today's world? Not likely.

Nothing's better in the free world nowadays than to be wronged. All the politicians can get up there and beat and pummel while the trial lawyers have a field day. There's often a big pay-off in being a victim. To be wronged is wonderful. Ask Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, who was awarded $780,000 after breaking her ankle, tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably flabbergasted by the verdict, bearing in mind the toddler was Ms. Robertson's own son. Ask 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles who won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman didn't observe there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps. Such prizewinning "victims" are not US-exclusive - wherever there's freedom there are individuals purposefully positioning themselves as victims and seemingly cashing in with their each and every whine.

We have become the human race of victims, where many are trying to leapfrog over each other, as if competing for the status of victimhood, where the majority characterize themselves as some sort of survivor. We live in a civilization where more and more people are claiming their own holocaust. While some victims are truly innocent - the child who is being molested, the mentally disabled patient being abused - the most successful victimhood involves some knowledge, familiarity or intimacy between victims and victimizers. Plain old Joe has to fight his corner far more circumspectly these days - to be sure he doesn't tread unwittingly, or get falsely blamed for treading wittingly or unwittingly, on some poor victim's toes for fear of losing everything in a flash.

There are three groups of perennial "victims" which the world (apart from themselves of course) wishes would just shush and get a life. And - contrary to those who daren't doubt anyone's victim status - I'm going to dare to reveal them here in all their victimhood ignominy. Groups who scrape the barrel of victimhood to such an extent that their very existence now depends on self-propagating negatives; their egos seemingly feeding off the malady of endless odium. You can't pick up a newspaper today without hearing a thought-out or compulsive whine from one of these groups and it's about time they had someone return their whines to sender. Their exploitation of victimhood is relentless and they don't seem to be able to see how tiresome they have become.

The first group is the Slavery Reparation movement - recently particularly vociferous to mark the bicentennial anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. These people claim that billions of pounds should be paid out as compensation for slavery which happened centuries ago. They include activists in the UK - as examples of many round the world - who are trying to take legal action against the British Government and the Queen for events that took place involving long deceased British subjects. They claim the effects of slavery are still very much with us today and never went away: racism, educational underachievement, gun crime. (Are these really all a legacy of what happened all those years ago?) Even Jamaican politicians are calling for the UK to pay up for Britain's role in what was a mostly profitable slave trade and help the colonial nations Britain once ruled.

The Slavery Reparation movement is global and whines garrulously across all media. Their proposals have called for cash payments from the U.S. as well as the British government and from other governments round the world. In the US, the question of who if any should receive such payments, who should pay them and in what amount, has been highly controversial, since the United States Census does not track descent from slaves or slave owners and depends on self-reported racial groupings. Since all slaves have long since died and the statute of limitations has long expired, no court has seriously supported reparations. Diverse estimates have been given - Harper's Magazine has created an estimate that the total of reparations due from the US is over $100 trillion, based on 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and 1865. So many years have passed since the crimes of slavery referred to by the reparation activists, we're left today with fuzzy guesswork - more guesstimate than estimate of hours productively enslaved.

Very few doubt that the slave trade was wrong and unethical but even less doubt that the slave trade (and potential reparation thereof) is bloody water passed - irretrievably many generations ago - under the bridge. Why should I as a British taxpayer pay for the misdeeds of my ancestors hundreds of years ago? Are these activists victim time-travelers? I was born in the 1970's - not the 1670's or 1770's. Am I seeking reparations from Normans who raped and pillaged my Anglo Saxon forefathers? Do my peers seek reparations from every Viking descendant they meet? A compensation package from Romans for putting a road straight through my ancestral home? Am I as a British Catholic suing my Protestant Queen for the behavior of her regal ancestors towards Papists? Of course not.

If we are guilty we should pay reparations - all alive today were born innocent of the crimes of slavery. Why don't the Slavery Reparation movement for once embrace a positive and attack the continued slavery that goes on in today's world - particularly in South East Asia, the Indian subcontinent and Africa? Why not chase the slave masters who live and breathe today rather than chasing the unaccountable ghosts of long gone slave traders who, according to their dubious claim, still haunt them? This movement's moral indignation holds no bounds - instead of continually whining like Chihuahuas, why don't these people try and emulate other descendant generation victims of slavery like the Victoria Cross winner Private Johnson Beharry or Nelson Mandela (whose grandfather was a slave) who have defended freedom by putting their lives on the line and helped better define freedom for us all in the process?

The second "victim" group is the Islamists, ranging from lawful Islamist groups to terrorist entities. Islamists seem to have a dual psychology in which they desire both "victimhood and domination". Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq. Go to the website of any Islamist (politically Islamic) group and the articles on show are likely about either their alleged superiority or victimhood. Take the Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) website today - festooned with articles whining about Islamophobia, whining about the destruction of the Caliphate, whining about how Iraq is all about "colonial" domination by the West, about how badly Muslims are, and have been, treated all over the world. Try the Muslim Council of Britain's (MCB) website today: headlines of "MCB welcomes Church overture on Slave Trade" (victims siding with conveniently voiceless victims), "Politicians exploit terror fears" and "Demonizing Muslims and Islamophobia: the acceptable face of racism". Even the less radical Muslim Public Affairs Committee's (MPAC) website joins the victimhood club with headlines of "British violations of Iranian territory", "Islamophobia: the real story" and "Outrage! BBC calls Jerusalem capital of Israel". Not one headline about Muslims killing Muslims. Islamists are professional victimhood opportunists - unfortunately, like the Emperor with no clothes, they fail to notice their victimhood strategy is patently transparent and that they have become a dreadful embarrassment to the nine out of ten Muslims (and growing) who wish they'd just button it.

Groups like MPAC, the MCB and HT push Ummah-consciousness hard. They know that the most effective way to create that consciousness is to peddle the "Global War Against Muslims" discourse. Once the belief that Muslims, everywhere, are bound together as victims of a global millennial battle which is being fought against their brothers and sisters everywhere, has taken hold of the imagination of a generation, they deem it is going to be very difficult to fight against. The decree of those who peddle the myth of victimhood is: "now that we're all under attack, you're with us, whether or not you want to be". Unlike the Troubles in say Ireland, the Islamists' Global War Against Muslims will not end with the termination of hostility in a particular conflict: but will shift its focus from one grievance to another, so that the Islamists can plough the furrow of victimhood until (they dream) they have enough support and numbers for the planet to succumb to Islamist command.

The Islamist interpretation of history makes Hollywood's "Braveheart", or sometimes even "Shrek", seem like non fiction. At its heart lies the "oppressed Muslim people" united against either its "crusader" or "colonial" oppressor (who are often portrayed as mere puppets on strings controlled by Jews). Little mention is made by groups like Hizb ut Tahrir (UK) - dominated by British Pakistanis - of how their Indian forefathers happily sided with the British East India Company, how they sought one-upmanship amongst each other and often killed each other in a crazed frenzy for greed of power and for even the smallest slice of treasures. The Islamists' version of history is all about this one ideal, amoeba-like, victimized, all-agreeing Ummah, which never existed and never will - at its heart a loser's mentality (so your forefathers wouldn't have conquered the world at the time too if they had the unity of purpose, the guile and the guts?), an inherent indignity and humiliation from which victimhood seems to them the most advantageous escape route.

The third group of seemingly perennial "victims" are the political Zionists. But before I even begin to discuss this group, let's be crystal clear here where the Zionists love to create a blur - I am not referring to Israelis here, I am not discussing Jews, I am not siding in an anti-Zionist stance with Neturei Karta or Satmar and, certainly, nor am I debating whether Israel should exist or not. I am referring to political Zionists who fill the media on a daily basis with talk of the Holocaust. Despite of regular Holocaust denials caricatures like Ahmadinejad espouse, anyone with a few gray cells needs reminding of the Holocaust once every few months at most - to be sure its vital lessons sink in once again and the chances of it repeating itself are reduced. I am referring to Zionists who, alone with the Islamists and Nazis, continually rant on about Jews as a race and - without realizing that they are ostracizing themselves from their friends (I refer here to allies of Israel and especially to many British and American Jews, some of whom happen to work with me in counter-terrorism) - make out that the Jews are an oppressed race wherever they are, that anti Semitism runs high all over the world, and that Israel-bashing is an anti Semitic pursuit (which it isn't of course, unless it is specifically targeting those of the Jewish faith for being Jewish).

Talk of Israel not having a future unless more Jews move to Israel, talk of "intermarriage" as if it's some kind of contemptible disease and talk of American Jews as betrayers of Israel (as they are not paying Israeli taxes, not moving to Israel and their children are not fighting in the Israeli army) - this is insecure, attempted guilt-creating talk which goes only to prove the stupidity and irrationalism of racism and, in the twenty first century global village, this kind of talk has actually become self-destructive. For example, should American Jews whose sons do not fight in the Israeli army now stop paying American taxes, some of which contribute to Israel's defense? Do Zionists really want to cut off hands which help support them and historically gave them a leg up? Guilt-creating by Zionists damages vitally valuable international bonds for Israel yet so many Zionists still use guilt-creating tactics anyway because after all they know best - they have made Zionism ugly, they are making Jews turn against them publicly which is bad for Israel and they are ostracizing the youth.

There's no doubt that Israel has to be circumspect and more than a little paranoid. There's no doubt that there's too much anti Semitism - as any racism is too much racism - in the world. There's no doubt that the Holocaust happened, was base and brutal, and saw a lot of people disgracefully turning a blind eye (including many of Israel's allies today). But do the Zionists not see that those very people they need most as friends are being increasingly put off by their continual whining about, and exploitation of, victimhood. The Holocaust has become a lesson over-used to the detriment of the effectiveness of the lesson, the racism of Zionism does more to put people (including Jews based outside Israel) off than draw them in, and the glorification of Zionism (as if it has been responsible alone for the estimable success stories by Jews of the past and present) creates more damaging myths (Jewish control of world media, Mossad behind 9/11, Jewish manipulation of diplomacy to create wars and so on) than a wiser, more self-effacing, humble approach would.

Where's the inspiration? The warm words? The respect for fellow human beings whatever they describe themselves? Where's the welcoming bridge behind today's Zionist spikes? Nineteenth century views can be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century successfully - ask the Reverend Ian Paisley.

Yes, Israel is on a knife-edge (not a razor-edge as the Zionists hold) and Israel needs to be strong and courageous - but the miracle of the (aided) rebirth of the Jewish people after the Holocaust is threatened most today not by the direct nuclear threat of Israel's neighbors, but indirectly by the supercilious and not very bright approach Zionists are taking, especially in front of offended allies who Israel still relies upon to a great extent to help counter their many enemies. Lose allies (whatever Zionists think of them) and the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel unquestionably becomes greater. Rather than coming across as the awe-inspiring and confident-sounding "We'll fight them in the air, we'll fight them in the water, we'll fight them on the beaches", today's political Zionists sound more like threatening little Kim Jong Ils or foot-stamping Rumpelstiltskins, who seem simultaneously reactive, unattractive and particularly insecure (before the victimhood is even mentioned) especially in front of Western Jews who they wish to recruit.

Zionists' interminable whining is scoring own goal after own goal because Zionists are failing to correctly gauge the intelligence of the world audience, who are fed up of insecure Zionist boasts - when for every Einstein, there's a hundred Newtons, and one in three on the planet are followers of the most famous Jew of all time. The world is far bigger, diverse, less black and white, more intelligent, more potentially co-operative, less Zionist-dependent and less Zionist-interested than the Zionists give it credit. One Zionist commentator recently commented in a reproduced article for Global Politician, "of the great ideologies of the twentieth century, only Zionism has really proven successful". This is just one example of the insensitive nonsense that Zionists currently discharge; a single, pointless throw-away line which offends almost all others who read it, whether Americanists, Europeanists, Multiculturalists, Friedmanists or backers of other particularly twentieth century ideologies, which may or may not be successful - their success or lack of it is not the point. Do I go around my international friends saying I'm as happy as can be because I won the lottery of life by being born English? (Of course not - and us English are not even living on a knife edge; more a comfy plateau). Unfortunately through the prism of many Zionists, naivety is not a word which can be associated with Zionism. When your country is on a knife-edge and your number relatively few in global terms is it wise to get people's backs up or is it wise to reinforce alliances at every opportunity? Why test the bonds of friendship when one can buttress them?

Israel-bashing is a totally legitimate sport, not that most people have the time on their hands or the yearning to bother engaging in it. There's nothing racist about it at all - whatever anyone says - it's part of the free man's liberty to have a pop if we so wish at our own countries and those of others, within reason. Perhaps it's the relative youth of Israel as a modern state which sees it less able than other states to have people criticize it (here I refer to Western commentators rather than the depraved critique picked up daily by MEMRI coming from Israel's closest neighbors and worst enemies).

Perhaps the Zionists would be humble enough to take a lesson from us often-abused Brits (no victim hood sought by any of us by the way) - the French used to cross the Channel just to complain about British food, British weather and, sacre bleu, how the British supposedly stunk. Brits simply held their stiff, upper lip, pretended to ignore the old enemy and sought solutions amongst themselves to these claims, whether false or true. Now the best French chefs in the world are accepting their pourboires in London restaurants against the background of a food revolution in Britain. Britain began an industrial revolution which supposedly accelerated global warming which means that there's a lot less rain about today in modern Britain - while skiing in the Alps really isn't what it used to be. And it's not the Brits who are notorious these days for their hairy pits and whiffing of garlic a mile down-wind. (We're still working on driving on the right and tucking into our horses for dinner, French friends, but, who knows? Maybe one day...) Roll with the punches, Zionists, whine less, make distinctions where they are so clearly due, be more self-effacing, cut the victim hood and look to hiring a forward-thinking PR agency to make your message more modern and effective while less insecure and offensive to your perennially suffering but (still ... just about!) loyal friends of Israel and fellow Jews. Otherwise UN resolution 46/86 is looking like just a flimsy, under-sized sticking plaster on the festering wound of 3379 until you modernize and make vital changes to your delivery.

While the Slavery Reparation movement, the Islamists and the Zionists position themselves as victims, they are in fact alienating the very people they need on their side. For - though to be wronged is wonderful in today's world on the face of things - victimhood is associated with losing not winning, and people join and support winning teams not losing teams (especially those who incessantly whine). While the media yardage for "victims" may be high, the media impact of victimhood is far less impressive. Perennial "victims" run the risk of victim media overload - of being seen through. Football managers of losing teams who constantly blame the referee or injuries caused by the opposition never last very long in the job because their team's fans see through to the truth of lousy false victimhood underneath.

Worse still for these groups, their cries of victimhood have a high cost, which is overlooked in pursuit of group goals. The incessant cry for empathy and justice by the victim industry which these groups seek to monopolize reduces the world's capacity to deal with genuine victims, such as children who are molested, women who are raped and beaten, immigrants who are mistreated, etc. Victim culture creates a compassion fatigue, which interferes with helping those who truly need and deserve help. Dr Shelby Steel, the race theorist, analyzed victimization ideology and how tragically it affected African-Americans' identity and their relationships with white Americans. Wendy Kaminer describes the outrageous notion of self-proscribed victims and the prevalence of irresponsibility and blame in the developed world today: "It has yet to be widely understood that by alleviating all women, minorities, inmates, or any victim, of any and all responsibility to predict, prevent or even, unconsciously, invite abuse, is to reduce them to helpless, incapable creatures, and in fact, actually re-victimizes them". Such drowning out of genuine victims by these three groups does not help the world they are trying to lean on - they are associating themselves with re-victimizing the weakest members of our societies and eventually must take some blame for drowning out real victims' cries for help.

There is hope that the whining from these particularly whiny groups may dissipate: the Slavery Reparations bandwagon is increasingly losing in court and activists are dropping out of the movement. Meanwhile, Islamists' in-fighting is on the up at the same time as the recent specters of both Algeria and Taliban Afghanistan haunt most Muslims when they consider combining Islam and politics. As for the Zionists? They, along with political commentators on Israel, are not setting the mood for the new Israel, for the new mood is being set by the Israeli youth who mix freely and happily with Brits, Americans and those of myriad other nations in international havens like foreign universities, Kho San Road in Thailand and on the beaches of Phuket, well away from their more isolationist parents and grandparents.

Welcome to the more effective "United" Nations - where diplomacy is replaced by affinity and debate is softened by (often self-deprecating) humor, a cool beer in the sun and the now global language of English. It is in such places and online in fresh lands like My Space - places one reads little about in standard international relations set texts - where lifelong friendships and alliances are being made and deals done. Bonds formed amongst world citizens (some no doubt descendants of slaves, though they don't go around parading the fact or demanding reparatory beers) in places where the weak image of victimhood is being summarily shattered. The younger Islamists alas seem to boycott such places - it is not that they are not invited to partake in the union, where they would be most welcome (the world knows the Islamists enjoy a bit of football chatter and fess up in private to having a penchant for the Pussycat Dolls as anyone with a musical ear appreciates a good nasheed).

Losers live in the past. A Winner learns from the past and enjoys working in the present towards the future. A True winner never whines. I have said enough - any more would be verging on mere talking.

Dominic Whiteman is spokesperson for the London-based VIGIL anti-terrorist organization - an international network of terror trackers, including former intelligence officers, military personnel and experts ranging from linguistic to banking experts.

---

Bookmark with: