Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Little White Lies

It was bound to happen eventually. The time is at hand when the Canadian conservative movement must confront the issue of white privilege.

So far we've had one major clusterkludge on the Sun News Network and one loaded question directed at John Tory, which, surprise surprise, he didn't answer very well. In both cases, there was an attempt to deny the existence of white privilege, and in both cases the right (such as it was) fell victim to one of the oldest tricks in the social justice warrior handbook: make your opponent look like an utter dumbass by causing them to explain away a concept that they don't and can't understand very well. Perhaps I can be of assistance in making sure this doesn't happen again.

First of all, you may have noticed that the very concept of privilege is a colossal logic bomb specifically designed to confuse the hell out of privileged people so that they lose the debate before it even starts. White privilege exists, so we are told, and the reason we know privilege exists is because white people aren't aware of it. Because white people are not subject to racism they have a much easier time of it than non-privileged people, so they would of course have no frame of reference. Then, when they are called out on their privilege, they will naturally say, "Sorry, I don't see it." Denying privilege exists is proof that privilege exists!

If denying the existence of privilege is just going to encourage the social justice warriors and make us look (and feel) stupid, then what we need to do is stop sounding like irrationally positive Liberals who pretend things couldn't be better and say: Yes, privilege exists. There is a power imbalance and society is divided into those with power and those without. If you're having trouble doing this, just remember that in this province, we have been governed for quite some time now by Liberals who have never hesitated to exercise their privileges at our expense.

Now that we have admitted that society is composed of warring factions, we have two courses of action. We can get overwhelmed with guilt at how awful it is that there is a power differential and start falling over ourselves to tell everyone how sorry we are about it all, or we can start exposing the social justice warriors for the immense hypocrites they are by showing how they are out to steal our privilege for their very own.

In case you can't tell which one of these two paths I prefer, let's examine the consequences of each one. Path A, the path where we all feel terrible and give up everything of our own free will, is a nice and comfortable path, and the social justice warriors would really prefer you took it. They say, and some of them actually believe, that if you acknowledge your own privilege, nothing will happen to you. (This is, of course, a nicer way of saying, 'Your money or your life'!)  Path A is the path taken by lots of world leaders, and when you are on this path you bankrupt yourself and others doing whatever the social justice warriors want so as to avoid conflicts and because looking like you don't care about inequality is a bad way to stay in power.

Prospective mayor John Tory has, in his earlier incarnations, tried to win over the social justice warriors by giving them almost everything they wanted, but stubbornly refusing to budge on this or that issue, which always ended up being his downfall. That's the problem with the social justice warriors: they know that they can get everything they want by pushing the guilt button, so they don't settle for half measures.

Ah, but for those rare moments where the John Torys of the world decide to plant their flags, the social justice warriors need to set an example so that all the little people will not plant their flags as well. The social justice warriors do not like having to do this at all. Oh, the indignity! The dirty slog of politics! Why oh why do these conservatives force us to make attack ads and tithe our union brothers and sisters?

At this point, instead of capitulating or going back to pretending the problem doesn't exist, I recommend that conservatives do something that's so insane that it just might work. You see, when the social justice warriors get off their high horses and start using morally ambiguous tactics, they have crossed a threshold. They are now trying to impose their agenda by force. So: if they are willing to leave their saintly principles by the wayside now, what's to stop them from doing the same once they have attained real power? What's to stop them from tilting the playing field in their favour? What's to stop them from becoming- gasp- privileged themselves???? Not a damn thing.

So what should conservatives do, then? It's easy: Point their fingers and draw attention to the fact that the high-minded social justice warriors are no different from anyone else. They are people, and people are self-interested. They do not want equity: they want supremacy. They do not want an end to privilege: they wish to have it for themselves. They do not want social justice at all, but a license to kill.

An example of this would be to make the case that your opponent is not a spoiled manchild who is "in over his head", but a bloodthirsty revolutionary enamored with his own destiny who will not hesitate to brutalize everyone who dares oppose him. By saying these completely true things, the CPC would be giving Canadians a reason to believe they are "better off" with Harper, instead of just saying so and hoping they'll believe it. Because Canadians are no different from the social justice warriors or from Trudeau or from anyone. We're all people, and we're all driven by the desire to protect ourselves and the people who look the most like us (which is a pretty good explanation for white privilege in and of itself, but that's neither here nor there) and while it's fine to dream, the song isn't quite true: Heaven is not a place on Earth.

And the social justice warriors, incredibly enough, acknowledge this fact. Why, they ask themselves, can we dream of all kinds of fantasy worlds yet we have not been able to imagine one where oppression does not exist? I have never yet heard a better argument for the correctness of the conservative worldview. The reason why we cannot imagine a world without oppression is because one cannot exist, and will never exist, because privilege is part of who we are.

Indeed, privilege is so integral to society and to all of our lived experiences that no conservative should have a reason to deny that it exists!


  1. If this is the case...please explain what JT is.... I BELIEVE HE IS THE EPITOME OF WHITE CLASS PRIVLIGE .....Steve O

  2. " Because
    white people are not subject to
    racism they have a much easier
    time of it than non-privileged
    people, so they would of course
    have no frame of reference."

    Umm... Have you been around the world? Try it. On foot. Western society is the most pluralistic in the world.
    its true that we have bad cultural bubbles and most of the racism comes from gutter trash or union thugs that force minimum wage hikes, like they did during the South African apartheid!

    Ask Thomas Sowell or Watler E. Williams there thoughts on "white privilege"... They will intellectually clobber the left.
    Those two guys are amongst the top living free market economists in the world... Guess what, they happen to be from Harlem and are black.
    The term you regurgitate comes from the old soviet invetion of critical theory, which was the precursor to political correctness, as with most things means the reverse. Look up critical theory by Bill Whittle on youtube and make sure its the legit version. He points out the original intention of those terms in a righteously inflamed rant. Never seen him so pushed, but you look at the date when it was made, it makes sense, given that at the time, i also was too busy drinking the PBS/Obama "kool aid" (first time using that phrase btw). Look up my last few Disqus comments on how lite i knew about u.s. politics.

    I didnt sign in cuz on crappy phone... And the term "white privilege" IS inherently racist.... anyway, pluralism and assimilation good, but multiculturalism creates enclaves where come next world war, you will have to worry where their alligences lye. Pluralism only compatible witb other pluralistic cultures! This is why i am only pro free trade with such cultures that wont work to undermine our freedom.
    Though its really a case by case issue.

    1. Leads right into my next post. Stay tuned :)

    2. I should of added that "privilege" of any stripe could be attainable, to be passed on from the initial generation that makes the step necessary to attain it. That can become a perceived advantage where ever they happen to be.

      Or in a host country, the common person is usually in a better position to start than a first gen minority who doesn't speak the language well.
      The situation is switched when the host nation has been stagnated by government oppression via any socialistic mechanisms being enforced onto that society.
      Where in that case, it takes wealthy foreigners are in a position to buy untended deeds or property that the government is selling to finance its debt, "services" or military, or previous owners looking to escape the madness/country.

      So perhaps that cycle of privilege may exist where governments have held back parts of civilization from enjoying the freedom of markets (the price system).

      Before I continue, I'd like to point out that I also signed in to take further credit of this since I wasn't regurgitating this from somewhere else, like I did above.
      My keyboard is preferable to a tiny touchscreen, like most human input devices, it helps a number of people who feel less comfortable with direct speech be more articulate and particularly less rushed. That's usually the case for most "disabled" folk.

      I get called useless sometimes in real life by clueless dolts who do menial labor, as if that would be remembered hundreds of years from now. So I figured I should start leaving a trail of what I think, given that intellectuals aren't world renown for internet comments.
      Not to play up what I said as all that profound in this instance but to cover other thoughts I never thought to take credit for. Though in this case, it was loosely inspired by things Sowell and Friedman may of alluded to in some way. Or a by product of the natural thought process of learning from such influences.
      In which case anyone could of said it a at given point. It's a matter of taking the time to reflect on it.

      What they say though is still a great addition to ones progression of learning, as oppose to shouting out collectivist sound bites & slogans.

      The typical socialist preach and tweet their unoriginal 'group think' like a factory worker pushes a button, else "strikes"... One guy hears a "tv personality" say something, then races for the tweet button, as if no one else thought to do the same.
      Their stunted IQ seems to match and reflect their choice of "job security" in an age of what should of been unfettered advancement.
      Essentially limiting their own 'privilege' and that of their offspring.

      Everyone, including them, stand to benefit from better choice of goods or services, local and foreign, if they would just embrace and adapt to competition, rather than work to stifle it.

      The focus shouldn't be hung up on dollars and cents of immediate wages, when its the value of those dollars and what 'goods' are available for exchanged for that they should be concerned with.

      Union Monopoly is usually "White" union monopoly, against foreign investment/competition... cuz I suppose they don't like the idea of legal aliens working above them? That's something for them to think over.

      That said, with a child bouncing on my back for this laptop while sharing a screen. I'm going to read her a book, then bedtime... adieu.