[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: White Privilege and Academic Mindfuck White Privilege and Academic Mindfuck "If you can stand to hear the words you've spoken/Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." --Kipling Whatever its vices, mumbo-jumbo has its uses. One of those, according to historian Nesta Webster, was to conceal from the uninitiated those various sets of putatively important truths possessed by the members of secret societies. Another use has always been to act as a cover for a speaker's ignorance by allowing him to sound learned and wise. Yet a third reason for mumbo-jumbo, and one which has burst upon the scene only within the last few years, is simply to gain assent to lies by means of causing such confusion that listeners find it difficult to disagree. It is this latter use that we wish to discuss in the present essay, in which we shall examine a particular instance of nonsense which has been put out by the politically-correct 'anti-racist' establishment for the evident purpose of disabling the white man's natural propensity to love and defend his race, thereby helping to destroy upon the altar of inferior races' ego the greatest long-term achievement of mankind -- Western civilization -- which only the white man has shown the ability to create and sustain. To begin, we note that the greatest bugaboo of all time, and an accusation that even the best and the brightest men seem to wither beneath, is 'racism'. What is so striking about this modern sin, as well as its immediate precursors 'prejudice' and 'bigotry' and its kissing cousin 'hate' -- is that they are all completely bogus as moral crimes or accusations, and indeed are virtually meaningless in any rational sense save that of intimidation. These facts may be explained as follows: * Prejudice, or pre-judice, is defined as the making of a judgment 'before all the facts are in'. But who is it that 'has all the facts' about some given issue? Answer: NO one has all the facts, nor could they have; and even if they did, these facts would normally be given different weights by different people according to their different experiences, thus leading to different judgments. Accordingly, what 'prejudice' amounts to is a difference of opinion between two people, but with the additional proviso that the one making the accusation is calling the other an SOB. Difference of opinion, however, is not a moral crime; for a crime, including a moral one, can only be committed in the performance of a voluntary act, and having an opinion is not a voluntary act -- indeed, it is not even an act. (As JBR Yant says, opinions are like shit -- they just happen.) There is more to prejudice than mere opinion, however; for what is called 'prejudice' is more properly described as the accumulated wisdom of one's own experiences, or that of one's friends, family and other trusted sources. Thus we have no more reason to apply the pejorative label of 'prejudice' to racial knowledge (or opinion, which is the same) any more than we would have to apply the label of 'prejudice' to scientific knowledge. * Bigotry has essentially the same analysis as prejudice, as Ambrose Bierce made clear when he defined 'bigot' in his famous Devil's Dictionary as 'One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.' * 'Hate', like prejudice and bigotry, is neither voluntary nor an act, so it cannot be a moral crime. However, as JBR Yant remarks, Hate is good, as long as it is directed against hateful things. And since hate is ALWAYS directed against hateful things -- hateful, at least, in the view of the hater -- it follows that hate is always good, at least in SOMEONE'S opinion; and who, after all, can say that one opinion is better than another, except in his opinion? But if the mindfuck confusion of the terms we have analyzed above is not bad enuf, there has recently been put forward by certain whoremasters of the educational elite yet a new twist on linguistic and ideational perversion, to wit, a "mandatory University of Delaware program [which] requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school..." The literature of this program defines 'racist' as "one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination." The program's literature also claims that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." Additionally it is stated that "a non-racist" is "a non-term," because "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')." Now it should be intuitively clear that the above is a congeries of nonsense, but what may not be so clear is exactly what the nature of that nonsense is. To explain, we recall that 'racist' is a term of opprobrium, and then note in the above 'definition' that -- surprisingly -- there is nothing which, upon reflection, is opprobrious. More specifically, let us break down the proffered definition of racism into its three component parts, and analyze each of these parts in turn: (1) "one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system." OK, so one finds himself privileged in some way by accident of birth. So what? We are all privileged in various ways by birth: For example, all people who don't have handicaps are 'privileged' over others who do. It is thus not a moral crime, or indeed anything to be ashamed of, if one is 'privileged'. (As black scholar Thomas Sowell is fond of remarking in racial contexts, "Life is unfair.") Pointing to 'white privilege' is, however, a wonderful way to make students feel GUILTY, not that there is anything that they ought to feel guilty ABOUT. In fact, one can argue that PRIVILEGE IS ACTUALLY A HANDICAP, ie, because a 'privileged' person is someone not challenged by some particular deficiency possessed by someone else -- eg, having well-formed front teeth, rather than having a gap in those teeth like Arnold Schwarzenegger -- he will therefore grow up weaker in some way, whereas if he had been born with the proverbial grain of sand in the oyster, he would have produced a pearl (or, like Arnold did, muscles). But there is more to the matter than merely pointing out that guilt over 'white privilege' is a bushel of unsterilized horse manure. Specifically, we have in this definition the usual socialist subtext of celebrating what Bertrand Russell called 'the virtue of the oppressed', a characteristic perhaps better described as 'the virtue of the inferior', or maybe just 'the virtue of the unvirtuous'. There is, of course, a certain political benefit to championing the inferior, because there are a lot more inferiors than there are superiors (or, at least there are a lot more people who identify with the inferiors in the sense of feeling downtrodden or oppressed), and of course there is no need to identify the inferiors as inferiors, but only to give them some quasi-honorific name such as 'the workers' or 'the people'. But the fact remains that one of Nature's iron laws is 'survival of the fittest'; and while this law may not be quite what Herbert Spencer and the other Social Darwinists imagined it to be, viz, 'Nature red in tooth and claw', to use Tennyson's famous characterization, it remains a fact that the general progress of the world is one in which the social organism shuffles off its mortal coil of inferiors much as an animal shuffles off its dandruff, and there is thus no reason to celebrate dandruff, even if it is still not quite shuffled. (2)'The term [racist] applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality." Well, now -- this is certainly a revelation; for if racism is so ingrained that all whites have it, then it can hardly be a sin, but only an accident of birth. But then if racism is undesirable, should not white people be considered NOT privileged (or more correctly, UNDER-privileged) because of this 'original sin' which, according to the definition, they cannot get rid of? Now why do I think that the creators of the 'definition' have tied themselves in knots? In fact, if the point of the UD program is to get rid of 'racism', then -- according to the proffered definition -- the program is pointless because the object cannot be achieved. (3) "By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination." Ah, yes -- save the best for last: People of de colored can't be racists, NOT because they are less evil than whites, but only because they don't have the power that whites have to realize that evil. This, however, would logically require that, as people of de colored become more powerful, they would become more racist. This possibility, however, seems to be denied by the above definition. Accordingly, the proffered definition of racism seems to be tied in yet another logical knot, not to mention the fact that acknowledging that people of de colored have the potential for evil clearly undercuts the notion of 'the virtue of the oppressed' upon which another part of the proffered definition of 'racism' depends. The point we are driving at in the above expositions is that, in spite of their meaninglessness and fundamental illegitimacy, the terms we have explicated have nevertheless been used in a bizarre and fantastic effort at language perversion and deliberate confusion, to perform a kind of mindfuck/behavioral modification on the population of the Western world so that people's natural opinions and sentiments will be reversed. In particular, the object of this mindfuck is to replace the instinctive and natural love of country, race and family with the perverted and unnatural embrace of multiculturalism, equalitarianism, globalization, and the false mantra that 'there is no race but the human race'. This mindset, then, insures that Western peoples will embrace the enemies of their race and thereby insure the destruction of both their genetic heritage and Western civilization, if not by physical conquest, then at least by intermarriage. It also insures that the New World Order/Jew World Order will have no trouble fixing the fetters of world government upon the free peoples of the West, thereby making inevitable that these peoples' hard-earned right of self-determination is lost by becoming vested in a centralized and unresponsive bureaucracy run for the pleasure of a rich and well-born elite. In conclusion, we have to wonder why there isn't someone at the University of Delaware smart enuf and informed enuf to tell the University's politically-correct anti-racist loonies to fuck off. POSTSCRIPT: Surprisingly, within only a day or so of the revelation of the UD's program by a major Internet news source, the University withdrew the program for 'further scrutiny'. Perhaps this was merely a cynical ploy to remove the University's officers from the firing line until the stench from their tipped-over intellectual outhouse blows over, but we may at least hope that the negative reactions generated by public exposure manage to bring some enlightenment to the racially benighted morons who signed off on the program in the first place.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||