Category Archives: Race

Repost: Shameless White Male Privilege

Here’s a repost from a few years back. I don’t think I’d agree with everything in it anymore and there are a few problems with the writing I’d probably change today, but I still like the gist of it.

Edit for clarification: There was a lot of pro-liberalism which I forgot about being in this post; that would be among the stuff I don’t agree with anymore and is an artifact of my libertarianism from that time. I only skimmed this when reposting (I posted it last minute after forgetting it was posting day) and forgot exactly how much libertarianism was in this and how much my political views have changed since then. It also seems I was less aware of the dangers of pathological altruism back then. It’s also interesting how bad my writing was back then (maybe it still is). By the gist I do like I was referring to specifically to not being ashamed of the privileges our ancestors blessed us with, which is the key point; that part I still agree with. As for the rest; take with a grain of salt, enjoy it as a snapshot of my change. Anyway, from now on I’m going to have to check these reposts more carefully.

So, this post on white male privilege by some sci-fi author has been making the rounds.

If you’ve ever spent time in the race-baiting and/or liberal weenie area of the blogosphere, you’ve probably heard the term white privilege before; it essentially it means that whites (and males) have inherent social advantages over others (minorities and females) that they don’t notice.

The post provides a fairly good analogy of the concept, and the author mostly avoids the moral superiority, butthurt, and male-shaming/white guilt that invariably accompanies liberal’s discussion of privilege. He doesn’t sound at all like the smarmy, self-hating, morally superior Tim Wise.

Now, among the right, conservatives, the manosphere, etc., the concept of white male privilege usually doesn’t gain much traction, and for quite a while it didn’t for me either; but after reading about it some, I’ve decided that I’ve got to go against the grain of my ideological brethren on this topic.

White privilege probably does exist; so to male privilege.

****

Immediately, many reading those will protest: what of affirmative action, what of political correctness, what of family court, what of chivalry, and so on and so forth. Sure, there are many number of things that are  against males.

In fact, I’ll go further and say that most codified discrimination that still exists in Western society, is either anti-white (occasionally anti-Asian) and/or anti-male. Codified discrimination against minorities and women has been almost entirely eliminated.

But that’s irrelevant to the concept, as white male privilege goes beyond that.

****

So, why do I accept this concept?

I’ll start with male privilege. Yes, females have some advantages over males: family court advantages, being the sexual gate-keeper, chivalry, less chance of prison, etc.

On the other males have so many more social advantages; I’ll just list what I think is the big one:

Unless I go to jail, I really never have to worry about rape. In fact, I almost never worry about my physical safety in relation to other people.

From what I understand, women keep their physical safety in mind quite a bit.

As for white privilege, the big one is this:

White is “normal”, other races are not. If someone describes me it’s based on height or hair colour or some other characteristic. When someone describes a minority to me, race is the first descriptor. In addition, there are no racial expectations placed on me either for bad or good; I never have to think about how I reflect on my race.

There’s more, but you can look elsewhere, this page is not a justification for the concept of privilege. All that’s necessary for my actual point is that I accept the concept of white male privilege.

****

If you doubt the concept of white male privilege honestly consider this:

Would you trade being male for being female if given the choice?

Would you trade being white for being a NAM if given the choice?

Probably not. You know it’s awesome being a white male.

****

Side note.

Don’t act like white males are victims, even if you don’t buy the concept of white privilege. I hate that.

Sure, some there may be some injustices (ie. family court) and these should be fixed, but creating white males as a victim class to rival other victim classes in being victims is just pathetic.

I disdain when feminist activists act like women are victims and I disdain when racial activists act like victims.

Life’s not fair. Deal with it.

You will eat shit; stop pretending that the shit you eat is worse than others’ shit, and because it’s worse it somehow makes you a better person or more deserving. It doesn’t.

Acting the victim only makes you weak and pathetic.

End side note.

****

Of course, white male privilege is not the only privilege there is.

The single greatest social privilege any person can have is parent’s who speak English. Oral and written English is the most useful skill any person in this globalized (ie. anglicized) world can have.

There’s the privilege of being born in North America in the 20th century. The most prosperous and safest civilization of all time.

Not being born a disabled is a great privilege.

Everybody has a wealth of privileges they don’t notice and aren’t grateful for.

As P.J. O’Rourke said to his daughter: “Honey, you’re cute. That’s not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That’s not fair. You were born in America. That’s not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.”

The focus on white male privilege, and white male privilege alone, is sometimes silly. Rarely do I see the other privileges (except maybe wealth) talked about. That’s besides my main point though. I just wanted to point out that you have other privileges that you may not be aware of.

****

Now, here’s the part where most of those talking about the concept of privilege try to make you feel guilty for having privilege and try to turn you into some bleeding-heart idiot.

I’m not going to do that, because I’m not an emotionalizing liberal; I’m an analytical, cold-hearted conservative.

Instead, I’m going to explain why white male privilege exists.

****

Why does it exist?

Simple: White male privilege exists because white males built the greatest civilization in the history of the world.

In particular, the people of a small island off the coast of Europe created and molded the modern world. The Germans, Italians, French, Russians, and Spaniards had some influence, but English liberalism (not modern progressivist liberalism, but Lockian liberalism and Burkian liberal-conservatism) is the basis for all the greatness of modern society.

English liberalism led to the creation of universal freedoms; allowing people to go about their personal and economic business free from worries of arbitrary exercises of power by those with power.

English liberalism championed and created the ideological basis for the free market, the single greatest engine of economic production ever conceived by man.

English common law created a system of justice where the rule of law prevailed, process was paramount, all were protected equally, and where state power was checked by law.

The protestant work ethic and individualist values prepared the English individuals to drive the above.

British heterogeneity in language, race, religion, and political culture created an English culture used to absorbing the best of other cultures.

Given these strengths, English civilization became the preeminent civilization for the last four centuries. (The USA is a part of English civilization).

All it’s real rivals, until the current rise of China, were other white European civilizations who shared some values with Englishmen. (No, the Japanese, Muslims, and Ottomans were never/are not a real threat to English civilization’s preeminence).

****

This great civilization was created by Englishmen for Englishmen (and their families); through their blood, sweat, and tears.

Englishmen fought numerous wars against the continentals to keep themselves free and to spread English values.

Rightly or wrongly, Englishmen fought overseas to acquire territory and resources for Englishmen and to spread English values.

The English economic engine was built on the toil, risk, and ideas of Englishmen.

English political culture and law was created and protected by Englishmen.

By doing so, Englishmen created the civilization we currently live in. It is also the richest, most powerful civilization in the history of the world.

****

White, male privilege exists because of this: English civilization was created for Englishmen by Englishmen.

Every liberal writer on privilege ignores this, but it is essential to understanding.

Why should white males feel guilty for enjoying the privileges their forefathers created for them?

Do not white males have the right to enjoy the civilization they created for themselves?

(You may be asking yourself right now, aren’t I conflating Englishmen and white males? Just wait, I’ll explain.)

White males absolutely have every right to enjoy the privileges they have created for themselves.

We owe nothing to no one.

****

So, what did the English do, having created this unprecedentedly wealthy, free, and powerful civilization?

They shared it.

Think about that. Englishmen created a civilization with power beyond anything the world has seen, but instead of doing what almost every civilization in history would do, they shared it.

They invited their conquered to join their prosperity. They shared their freedom with their slaves.

****

What do you mean they shared it? That’s not what I learned in school.

First, they gave it to non-English Europeans: the Irish, Scots, Germans, Norse, etc.  Other than French Quebec, they have been fully assimilated. We allowed them into our country and they adopted English values. They hold to English law, English individualism, English liberty, and identify as English (ie. American, a subset of English). In North America, specific types of European blood don’t matter very much. (As an aside: some interesting maps that may illustrate what I mean). They are all honorary English. Europeans of ethnicities have come to positions of power.

I don’t have a drop of English blood in me, but I am English to the core.

Englishmen gave it to women. They gave the benefits of English civilization to women through the family and mores of chivalry. Then they were extended the vote. Then they were giver more rights and privileges through feminism, affirmative action, the welfare state, etc.

The blacks were fucked over by Englishmen who had them as slaves, yes. (Although, not as much as by other Africans who enslaved them in the first place, but that’s neither here nor there).

But, then Englishmen fought a war to free them. Who else, other than Englishmen and a couple of other English-influenced European countries have freed their own slaves en masse out of morality? Who else other than English civilization fought a bloody civil war to free another group from slavery due to compassion? Then, decades later Englishmen allowed their ex-slaves full legal access to politics and economics. They created affirmative action and the welfare state to redress past wrongs. Until today, where the Englishman’s ex-slaves are in a far better position than they would have been had they never been enslaved in the first place.

Others, such as Asians, Jews, Latinos, etc. all had a similar process where we allowed them to share in what Englishmen have built.

****

Now, these happened over long time-scales yes, and there were abuses by Englishmen, yes.

But how many civilizations, other than Englishmen (and some English influenced European countries) , have willingly and freely given power, wealth, and freedom to ex-slaves, conquered peoples, immigrants, etc.?

The American welfare state is a program for the mass transfer of wealth from Englishmen to everybody else, put into place by Englishmen. Other than Englishmen, who else has created an political-economic system where they willingly transfer vast amounts of wealth from themselves to others?

By the standards of power politics, Englishmen have been downright generous.

****

The more Englishmen shared, the more entitled others became.

Rather than being thankful we allowed others into the prosperity and freedom we built, they demonized us as oppressors.

They demanded more, so we gave them more. Rather than gratefulness, all we earned were more demands.

****

Now, you might think to yourself, didn’t others help create English civilization? What about black slaves? What about the Chinese railroad workers? What of Gurkhas? What about English women?

Yes, they did. Black slaves helped build the Southern economy. Chinese immigrants did help build the railroads. Gurkhas, Sikhs, and other such “warrior races” helped expand and defend English territory.

But so what?

These are all exceptions. The vast majority of the blood, sweat, and tears expended building this civilization was that of the Englishman. This no more invalidates what I have wrote, than the average white male not having an easy life invalidates the concept of white privilege.

As for Englishwomen, they helped preserve English culture and pass it on to the next generation. In the main, they did not build it. This is not to invalidate the importance of preservation and transmission, they are essential, but they are different.

****

So, next time some emasculated liberal, rabid feminist, or race-baiter starts going on about white privilege this, male privilege that, just put on a smug smile and tell him/her:

Damn right we have privilege and we Englishmen earned every last bit of it. Instead of whining about it, how about some gratitude? We created unimaginable wealth, unprecedented freedom, and a fair legal and political system for ourselves. We created all this, then we willingly allowed you to partake in it. Stop whining about a couple small advantages we still have for creating all this and enjoy what we gave you instead.

Do not let them make you feel white guilt. Do not let them make you feel shame.

You’re privileged. That’s awesome. Enjoy it.

South Africa and Muslim Rape

Still sick, but I’ll comment briefly on a solid article from NRO a week back on the South African genocide. It’s interesting in how it’s pushing the Overton window. There’s a straight-up call out against the genocide of the Boers in South Africa, but even more interesting is his idea of a solution:

In the meantime, endangered South Africans might try this:

They could take advantage of their geography and set up a Singapore-style city-state. With foreign investment, they could purchase a city-sized portion of coastal land and assert independence from the national government. First they’ll want to hire some sympathetic military as a temporary security force. They can set up a low-tax, low-interference economic zone that can compete with Durban for its tremendously large volume of shipping traffic. As South Africa has fallen apart, Durban has slipped off the list of the world’s 50 largest container ports. But whatever happens to South Africa, the south of Africa will remain a vital point in world shipping. In fact, it’s only going to become vital-er, as trade between Brazil and Asia increases. Singapore, at the tip of the Malay Peninsula, built itself as a site of entrepôt trade — exporting imports. It has parlayed that into one of the world’s most advanced economies, a global center of innovation and free enterprise.

A new South African city-state could join Singapore and Hong Kong as centers of trade and investment — starting with the investment that would be necessary to build a brand new city-state out of thin air. But one has only to look at Abu Dhabi, Dubai, or any number of Chinese cities to see how fast a city can be built with some will and capital. A South African enclave could attempt its own “Taiwan miracle.”

Very Landian. Of course, I fully support this idea; an independent Boer city-state in SA would be a great idea.

Also, something else stood out to me:

When apartheid ended, the life expectancy in South Africa was 64 — the same as in Turkey and Russia. Now it’s 56, the same as in Somalia. There are 132.4 rapes per 100,000 people per year, which is by far the highest in the world: Botswana is in second with 93, Sweden in third with 64; no other country exceeds 32.

I knew the Muslim rape crisis in Sweden was bad, but I never thought they were third in the world. This has got to be missing a bunch of the third-world basket-cases where reporting is spotty, but even so, that’s insanely high. At some point, between the Swedens, the Rotherhams, and the continuous stream of rapes, European are going to have to wake up to the perils of immigration and multiculturalism.

The Jewish Question

I wrote on Jewish privilege last week and the post was made more as a satirical bite at critical theorists than really related to Jews at all. As should be obvious to anyone reading my blog, I am not a critical theorist and am opposed to them. (My thoughts on white male privilege can be seen here and here). So any post where I seem to be supporting it should be read as containing a certain level of satire or irony.

I was accused of being anti-semitism because of the Jewish privilege post. Given that my post was mostly just a collection of statistics, it would seem some people think that reality itself is anti-semitic. So, note to Jews, you’ll probably make more enemies than friends if you go around yelling anti-semitism whenever someone mentions Jews in anything less than worshipful tones.

I’ve written little on Jews before for the simple reason that I don’t really care all that much about Jews either way. I don’t write pro-Jewish things because I’m not a Jew, Jew’s aren’t my people. I’ll leave it to Jews to promote and defend to themselves. I don’t write anti-Jewish things because I’m not particularly anti-Jewish either. But, given that the topic’s come up, I’ll give my thoughts on the Jewish Question and alienate all my readers in the process.

On a personal level, I’ve met few Jews, they’re sparse on the ground in the Canadian prairies, but those few I have met seemed to be decent-enough folks. As with any group of ‘others’, I’ll interact and judge Jews on an individual base but I have a natural preference for my own and tend to naturally congregate to my own, so I tend to spend the majority of my time with working/middle-class Christian whites.

On a group level, I view Jews as I do any other out-group not engaged in war with my in-groups, with benevolent neutrality. They are not my group but neither do I wish them ill.

Continuing on, as I demonstrated in my Jewish privilege post, in North America Jews are vastly overrepresented in any non-physical, high-status area of achievement, be it government, the financial sector, the media, the education system, or the justice system. Jews wield a disproportionate level of influence. This is a statistical fact. Anybody who denies this is a liar or ignorant and anybody who thinks stating this is anti-semitic thinks reality itself is anti-semitic and is no more worth listening to on the subject than any other race-baiter.

The reason for Jew’s over-representation is likely a combination of intelligence and tribalism. Jews have a high average IQ, which is correlated heavily with success. As well, Jews, like most people groups excepting some pathologically altruistic whites, tend to favour their own group over out-groups. This in-group favouring gives Jews, along with Asians and blacks, a competitive advantage as a group over whites in white dominated countries where the white in-group is larger, more diffuse, and riddled with the pathologically altruistic, making whites less likely to act in their group interests. Whites simply don’t identify as whites as an in-group and don’t act on this in-group loyalty.

For these two reasons, Jews are more successful on average than the white majority and I don’t really begrudge them that. Tribalism is natural and healthy, it is a good thing. I don’t hold it against other groups who act in the interests of their group except when it is to attack my group. That Europeans deny their natural tribalistic impulses is on Europeans not on Jews.

(I’ll note here, that whites as a group are not my group; white in North America is far too large and diffuse a group to make it an in-group. My in-group would be the red tribe, particularly Prairie Canadians. Many whites, particularly blue tribe whites, are also the other).

Some would point to the Jewish over-representation in progressive causes as an attack on my people, but I do not think Jewish over-representation in progressive causes indicates any purposeful, malign attack on the part of Jews.  Jews have always voted strongly Democrat and are a liberal group who prefer liberal policies, and given the earlier two reasons they tend to represent themselves well wherever they happen to be; this combination of achievement and liberalism is why Jews tend to be heavily represented in progressivist movement.

Those minority of Jews who have not been liberal have acquitted themselves proportionately well in anti-progressivism. Jews were the largest minority who fought for the confederacy. Jews were important aides to McCarthy in his anti-communist fights. Barry Goldwater himself was half-Jewish. More revealingly, 1% of the John Birch society were Jews, despite the fact that at the time, only 10% of Jews voted for Goldwater. So, .2% of the population that were Jewish conservatives were over-represented by a factor of 5 in the JBS.

So, Jews represent themselves well wherever they seem to go, but they tend to go liberal as a group. It seems less a purposeful attack on us by Jews, and more Jews, as a different group, have different priorities and pursue them. They happen to be good at it and are thus overrepresented among progressives. The effect is the same, progressivism, but ideological convergence rather than malign conspiracy seems more explanatory.

Continuing on, Jews are only 2% of the population. They are, as a group, smart and wealthy, but they are not super-human monsters. They may be progressive and disproportionately powerful, but even then they still hold only a small fraction of power and wealth in North America. If the majority were opposed to progressivism it wouldn’t matter what Jews thought. Our willful self-destruction is our own fault.

Because of this I can’t bear any particular ill-will towards Jews as a group; I do not fault groups for pursuing their interests and the only reason their interests are hurting us is because too many of us are pursuing self-immolation. But, we do have different interests, so something should be done so neither of our groups are hurting each other while pursuing our own interests.

So, what is to be done?

The same as is to be done with any other group: separation. As with blacks, Jews are not us, they are a different group with different priorities and different values, and they should be allowed to pursue them, just as we should be allowed to pursue our own priorities.

The answer to the Jewish question is subsidiarity or patchwork. Different groups, whether ethnic, religious, or ideological should have their own regions to live as they see fit without interference from other groups. In the particular case of Jews, this should be easy, as they tend to be geographically concentrated in the Northeast, Florida, and California. When we divide the country, we can allow these areas to either be cosmopolitan or give them to the Jews to run as they see fit. Then Jews and blue tribe whites can have their progressive utopia, blacks can have their welfare state, and red tribe whites can have agrarian conservatism. We can all live separate but in peace.

Critical Race Theory: Jewish Privilege

In all the critical theory writing of male privilege, white privilege, cis-privilege, thin privilege, ability privilege, etc. there is one major highly privileged group that no one ever writes about: Jews. So today, I’m going to add my own addition to the critical theory canon: Jewish privilege.

I started thinking about Jewish privilege a month ago when one Michael Mark Cohen wrote a paean to the word ‘douchebag’. He called himself “a white, middle class male professor” who asks his students to shout white racial slurs at him. Oddly enough, this Jewish person is not insulted by others insulting white people, saying:

The point of this sanctioned spewing of hate speech is that none of these words can hurt me. Because I am an individual. I can choose to not be offended, not to be affiliated with any group and rest assured in my sense of self.

I think the more likely answer for why he is not offended is because Cohen is not white, but Jewish.  I’m sure if people started throwing out insults like ‘hebe’ or ‘kike’ which actually applied to Jews rather than ‘cracker’ or ‘honky’, which do not, Cohen’s reactions would be much different.

Either way, Cohen then goes and advocates for the othering of white males by applying a new racial slur against them.

This is just one example of Jewish privilege: to be able to pretend to be of another ethnic group when convenient and using this position to advocate racism against that ethnic group on major media sites (the essay appeared on Gawker) without fear of backlash.

****

Jews make up only about 2% of the population yet are vastly overrepresented throughout are cultural and governmental institutions. So, here’s a small list of Jewish privilege, feel free to contribute more in the comments:

Jews are very wealthy. The average Jew’s net worth is $372k (p. 187), almost three times higher than the average American’s ($135k). Almost half of Jews have income of over $100k, compared to 18% of the general population. The percentage of Jews with income under $30k is half that of the general population.

Jews are far more educated than the general populace (p. 56). 35% of Jews have a post-grad degree, three times as many as the general population. 59% of Jews have a college degree, over double the general population, while only 3% of Jews have not graduated high school, compared to 14% of the general population. 5.4% of college professors are Jewish (religion). Jews are heavily overrepresented at the Ivy League composing “21 percent of the enrollment at Ivy League schools (30 percent at Penn, 29 percent at Yale and 26 percent at Harvard).

Jews are heavily overrepresented in the legal system. Jews make up 33% of the Supreme Court. The protestant white majority have no Supreme Court justices representing them. I can’t find modern statistics of overall justices, but under Kennedy and Johnson 10% of judicial appointees were Jewish and I’m sure the proportion hasn’t changed too significantly since. They also make up 26% of the nation’s law professors and 30% of the Supreme Court clerks.

Jews are overrepresented in government. 6% of congress is Jewish; of that, 10% of the senate is Jewish. 13% (2/15) of the cabinet is Jewish.

Jews are heavily overrepresented in cultural creation industries. According to Ben Stein, 60% of important Hollywood positions are held by Jews, while every major studio chief is Jewish. Of the 8 major US media corporations, at least 3 of the CEO’s are identifiably Jewish from their wiki page, a few more could be JEwish but are not so identified.

Jews can present as either whites or Jews, allowing them to claim both minority or majority status as is convenient. This heavily obscures their Jewish privilege, as it is simply chalked up to white privilege. Quite often I found I had to use religion as a proxy for ethnicity because Jews were simply lumped in statistically with whites.

The privileges held by Jews dwarf those held by whites. I think critical race theorists should spend more time and effort studying this understudied area of privilege.

Are Slate and Amanda Hess Arguing for Lynching?

Feminists complain about street harassment all the time. I’ve never actually seen someone harass a woman on the street, I’ve never done it, and none of my friends have done it.  So, I’ve always been a bit skeptical, because if something is so common, why haven’t I ever even seen it occur before. A few women have told me a story or two of a random crazy person on the bus doing something harassing (ie. one man on a bus just sat himself in the lap of a girl I dated), so I knew harassment did occur, but were usually isolated events done by crazy people. I never believed it happened as omnipresently as feminists claim.

Slate has tried to prove that harassment exists omnipresently by a woman filming herself walking for 10 hours. Here’s a two-minute highlight video of the harassment. Watch it.

First, that’s 2 minutes from 10 hours, so unless a lot of harassment was cut out, that’s not as much as feminists complain about. The video claims 100+ incidents, so that’s about one incident per every six minutes, that’s more, but still not much.

Second, if we assume the video included the worst of the harassment, a safe assumption give the point of the video, the “harassment” seem rather insignificant. this “harassment” included people doing nothing but saying “Have a nice evening”, “God bless”, and “how are you this morning?”. So in other words, to acknowledge a woman’s existence is harassment. What did the 80 incidences not bad enough to appear in the video include, people saying ‘hello’?

If this is the best evidence of harassment feminists can dredge up, I still do not buy the feminist argument. In fact, this video is a strike against it.

****

The more interesting part of this video though is race. I counted the incidences in the video, and by my count there were 21 harassers (two incidences had two perpetrators). Of those, 10 of the harassers looked black, 5 looked white, 2 looked Hispanic, and in 4 incidences I could not identify the race (although, two sounded stereotypically black to me).

So, of the incidences where the race was known, black committed 10 of the 17 of the cases of harassment, about 60%. Also, the the most egregious harassments (she was followed twice and some yelled passed a first comment) were by blacks.

From this, it seems the major problem is not harassment from men in general, but harassment from urban black men in particular. This would explain why I’ve never witnessed it; there are very few urban blacks where I live. That the harassers are largely black is reinforced by the stereotypical ebonics name of the campaign the video is in support of, “Hollaback!”.

Also of interest is that only a couple harassers looked even remotely middle-class, the rest looked either working-class or welfare-class.

The target audience of Slate is middle-class white liberals with humanities degrees. These are not the type of people harassing the woman in the video. There is no point lecturing Slate readers on stopping harassment because Slate readers are not the ones harassing.

So, there seems to be no point to this article. Slate readers aren’t the ones doing the harassing and it’s not likely lower-class blacks will care about the moral protestations of middle-class white feminists.

The only reason I can think of to write this is to encourage white males to forcibly stop black men from harassing them. something which reminds me of the days when looking wrongly at a white woman was a lynching offence. It seems to me that Amanda Hess and Slate just inadvertently argued for society to resume lynching uppity blacks, or at least segregation to keep them off the streets white women might use. I think everybody involved needs to check their privilege.

Anyway, if you wish to donate to a campaign to stop uppity blacks from talking to white women, you can donate to Hollaback here.

****

It looks like between writing this and posting it, the implications of this video have become clear and Slate is doing damage control.

Victimization

Two recent controversies have shown a particular pathology of the left. The first is the fight over the Washington Redskins, and how the Redskins have lost their trademark for being disparaging. The second is the strong reaction of the left to Miss Nevada saying women should learn to defend themselves from rape.

First, the Redskins. Look at their logo:

Are those logos in any way disparaging or insulting?

No. The first shows a strong, proud man with a calm, dignified bearing, the second shows a a strong, proud warrior raring for action. Both are rather complimentary to Aboriginals.

I am part Norse, so the Vikings team has a mascot of my heritage.

Is this disparaging? No, because, as with the Redskins logo, he’s a strong, determined man. In fact, although I don’t follow NFL at all, my team(an extremely shallow allegiance) is the Vikings, simply because they are the Vikings, and they celebrate my heritage.

So the question is why do leftists think portraying Aboriginals as strong, proud men and celebrating their strength is disparaging?

****

Next we come to Miss Nevada. She stated a very sane and rational opinion:

But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.

The feminists freaked out.

Here’s one example that really shows the absurdity of this condemnation: a male feminist condemns a man who teaches women to protect themselves from rape as a misogynist, while at the also praising someone who raped children.

So why do leftists think that teaching women to be strong and to protect themselves is misogynistic?

****

The answer to both of these is the same, the words ‘disparaging’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, etc. are not used for their literal definition, they are used merely for their exo-semantic meaning of ‘bad’. They carry the same semantic meaning as a pack of monkeys pointing and hooting.

The words don’t mean much in themselves, but the reason for the pointing and hooting is what’s important.

The left needs women and minorities to remain victims.

If one points the Aboriginal back to his heritage, the proud brave, independent, strong, and free, the impoverished and beaten-down Aboriginal on the reservation may look at his life and ask, “Why are we so broken, so dependent, when our ancestors were so strong, so proud?”

If a young woman learns to protect herself and avoid drunkenness, she won’t have need of the rape hysteria of feminists. If she learns self-responsibility and takes control of her own life, she won’t need feminism and its war against personal responsibility at all.

This is what the leftists fear. They fear Aboriginals might decide to get off the reservation, that women will stop feeling victimized, that blacks will leave the welfare plantation, etc. Leftists need people to feel like victims so they will cry to others, ie. the government, for help.

The leftists strategy is and always has been to expand the state. Victims are dependent on the state, they need the state to protect them, to provide for them. If leftists run out fo victims, they no longer have the cover they need to continue expanding the state.

Leftists hate the Redskins because they need Aboriginals to feel victimized and to not be able to remember the proud warriors and leaders their ancestors were. They hate women protecting themselves, because a confident self-realized woman does not need the state to protect her and provide for her.

Without victims the state is unneeded; without those who make their livings in the victim- and welfare-industrial complexes would not have such cushy jobs.

Leftists need victims to continue their long march.

Christian Ethno-Nationalism

Earlier this week, Anissimov, Avenging Red Hand, and Anti-Democracy Blog got into a Twitter discussion around Christians and ethno-nationalism. At one point, Mike asked about a write up on Christianity and ethno-nationalism, so, it looks like this is turning to race week here, as I’ll give some thoughts.

First, Mike is right in that Christianity is universalist egalitarianism, but he uses it in the wrong sense. Christianity is universalist egalitarianism in a metaphysical sense, but not in a physical sense. It is universal in that the church is a universal brotherhood of all Christians; it is egalitarian in that all men will have to give an accounting before God and God will favour no nation.

But even metaphysically, the accounting is not equal. Each person is given a varying amount in life (in talents, wealth, ability, etc.) and will judged based on how he used those talents. “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

The Bible is clear that people are inherently unequal, and each will give an accounting before God, where his life and works will be tested based upon how he used what blessings he was given in life.

The story of the Tower of Babel indicates that God purposely made it so that all people were not of the same language and nation.

So, yes, it Christianity is universalist egalitarianism, but metaphysically so, not physically so.

****

Next we come to racism.

Hating someone because of their race is simply non-Christian. We are to love our neighbours as ourselves and a neighbour is anyone you come across in need regardless of race or ethnicity, as demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

While hatred is disallowed, truthful stereotypes of racial groups are accepted in the Bible. As St. Paul himself wrote, “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.”

Non-truthful stereotypes, bearing false witness against your neighbour, is definitely unChristian, but “racism” consisting of truthful stereotypes and generalizations are acceptable to Christians (either that or you have to accept that the Word is sinful).

Having a love or preferring your own race and ethnicity is also acceptable. Again, we turn to Paul who writes, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

When it comes to close family, Paul is vehemently unmistakable, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Paul shows a strong natural affinity for his own people and demands a strong affinity for close family.

Jesus himself showed a natural affinity for his own people and was not concerned about racially insensitive remark.

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.”(Matthew 15:24-28 ESV)

The Christian is allowed, but not commanded, to commit the “racist” actions of truthful generalization and loving their own kin preferentially, and is commanded to preferentially care for his own relatives. The Christian is not allowed to hate his neighbour or commit evil against him because of his race or ethnicity.

****

I will address Galatians 3, as someone always brings that up whenever race or ethnicity is mentioned.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. (Galatians 3:23-29, 4:1-2 ESV)

What Paul is obviously referring to, when “neither Jew nor Greek” is not ripped entirely out of context for ideological purposes, is that all Christians are heirs to the promise of salvation given through faith. It is a metaphysical claim concerning our salvation and equality in Christ’s covenant. It is not a physical claim that all ethnic differences are now entirely meaningless and everybody is equal in every earthly way.

With that objection taken care of, we continue on.

****

The Israelite state of the Old Testament was very strongly ethno-religious. Inter-ethnic/religious marriage was forbidden, as was religious tolerance. Although, whether this was just religious or both religious and ethnic is debatable. Although later, it is confirmed that Jews marrying other races is a sin detestable before God. On the other hand, other inter-racial marriages such as Ruth and Boaz were viewed positively. People born of a forbidden union were forbidden from the Lord’s assembly.

As far as I know, there is no talk of inter-racial/inter-ethnic marriage in the New Testament.

So, as far as I can tell there is no real prohibition on miscegenation, but neither is there an encouragement of it.

****

The sojourner is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, usually positively. Sojourners, foreigners who lived among the Israelites, are not to be oppressed or wronged, are to be given fair justice, and they are sometimes lumped in with the poor. They are also to keep the same laws and be subject to the same punishments.

Sojourners were allowed to be treated differently in some ways. They could be charged interest and could be kept perpetually as slaves as well.

On the other hand, the state is to enforce the rule of law, people can not be allowed to violate the law and the law should not be violated.

So, any immigrants a nation does have should be treated well, judged fairly, and subject to the law, but a nation and its rulers has the right to create and enforce its own immigration laws.

****

Finally, we come to war. God is not a pacifist, as He often called for wars, quite often wars of extermination in the Old Testament. Jesus never condemned war as a concept either, He never really talked about the ethics of war at all but rather He seemed to like Roman soldiers. On the other hand, calls to peace in the general are common, so Christians can not just go declaring war for any reason. Most Christians accept some form of Just War theory derived from Biblical principles, but I’m not going too deep into that because it is tangential.

Mike specifically asked if Christians would kill their co-religious for their co-ethnics.

A Christian can righteously be a soldier and fight, even in a pagan or non-Christian army, as shown by the almost-always positive appearances of Roman soldiers in the New Testament or by David’s mercenary service for the Philistines. Assuming a just war, the Christian could easily fight for his co-ethnics, even if some on the other side may be Christian.  So Christians can fight for both Christian and non-Christian nations.

As for fighting for a non-Christian nation against a Christian nation, in David’s story Philistine leaders prevent him from having to choose between fighting for Philistine against Israel, or turning on Israel, and, as far as I remember, it is not dealt with elsewhere, so it is never made clear what the proper choice would be. I would say this would generally fall under just war theory. If the non-Christian nation has a just cause for war, there would be no problem.

Although, if the non-Christian nation did not have a just cause, I’m unsure. I doubt it would be held against the individual soldier as long as he fought honorably and justly, even if for an secular nation in an unjust war.

The question has less to do with who-whom and more is the cause just.

I’ll just say, that if NATO goes to war against Russia, I’ll probably fight only if I’m drafted.

****

Mike also mentioned meekness, I will simply direct him to Simon Grey who wrote on meekness recently. To summarize, meekness does not mean weakness, it means strength constrained and directed through discipline.

****

In sum, to the Christian, religion comes before ethnicity. Ethno-nationalism is not commanded, except possibly for the Israelites, but ethnicity and ethno-nationalism can still be part of a Christian worldview as long as they do not overtake religion. Any ethno-nationalism has to be out of love for your own, not hate of the other and even so, one can not be unjust to the other. Immigration is not commanded and a country has the right to make and enforce its own laws, but any immigrants allowed in have to be treated properly. As far as I know, miscegenation is generally not written of, except Israelites couldn’t marry non-Israelites. A Christian can fight for whomever they wish assuming the war is just. If it is not, then the question is less clear.

If I missed something, please tell me in the comments.