[Suntzu]

Everyone picks on Blacks, even Blacks.

[foxdemon]

It's easier to get a job if you have an English name in Britain rather than an Asian one and Asian Britons are more likely to fail to land a job upon graduation regardless of their excellent grades in school. But this is similar to Japanese individuals who are more privileged in their own society than Korean or Chinese residents, who are almost excluded from the formal education system and the job market. Calling it white privilege is a misnomer but we can fairly say that resident aliens are discriminated.

That is a most insightful post, @ThirdTerm . But I think we can go further than saying ‘white privilege’ is a misnomer. It is actually deliberately racist. It is trying to convey the idea that people of European decent are somehow exceptional in a negative way.

The more egalitarian societies become, the more privilege or similar concepts are invoked to explain away differences. Otherwise, the house of cards on which the world view of progressives is built comes crashing down. That's pretty much at the heart of most of our problems today.

That is a superficial look at it. A better view can be obtained by looking at the historical political economy trends in the West.

Socio economic inequality has been on the rise in the West, particularly America, for the last 50 years. Naturally many will lose out as resources and power are concentrated in fewer hands. Given the majority in these countries are white, a system of belief that justifies the dispossession of that majority and delegitimises any objection to their new circumstance, will be of utility to those who are benefiting from the rise in inequality.

So we have an idea that white people have something they don’t deserve and can’t complain about if it is removed from them. It is quite perverse that an idea based on notions of equality can be used to propagate inequality.

[Potemkin]

It is quite perverse that an idea based on notions of equality can be used to propagate inequality.

But isn't this what happens with every ideology, foxdemon? After all, capitalism itself began as a radically egalitarian ideal, being based as it is on the abstract ideal that all human beings are equal and interchangeable units, whether as producers or consumers, and that equality of economic opportunity will lead to a 'meritocratic' social hierarchy, in contrast to the hereditary, divinely ordained social stratification of feudalism. Even the business suit, today a symbol of wealth and power, began as a simplified, sober uniform to erase all distinctions of rank and privilege, as a negation of the silks and ruffles of the feudal aristocracy. Human beings love their privileges, and we cling ferociously to our distinctions of rank and status, no matter how petty and meaningless they may be. As Immanuel Kant put it, "Out of the warped wood of human nature, nothing straight was ever made."

[Kaiserschmarrn]

That is a superficial look at it. A better view can be obtained by looking at the historical political economy trends in the West.

Socio economic inequality has been on the rise in the West, particularly America, for the last 50 years. Naturally many will lose out as resources and power are concentrated in fewer hands. Given the majority in these countries are white, a system of belief that justifies the dispossession of that majority and delegitimises any objection to their new circumstance, will be of utility to those who are benefiting from the rise in inequality.

So we have an idea that white people have something they don’t deserve and can’t complain about if it is removed from them. It is quite perverse that an idea based on notions of equality can be used to propagate inequality.

Nobody could manage to impose such a ludicrous view on a society that has a basic respect for itself and human nature and lacks the hubris that its people can be moulded and transformed at a whim. Progressives are our main weakness and vulnerability. The most interesting question is why they do arise in substantial numbers in the west and are seemingly strongest in Northwestern European countries and the societies they have founded.

[foxdemon]

Nobody could manage to impose such a ludicrous view on a society that has a basic respect for itself and human nature and lacks the hubris that its people can be moulded and transformed at a whim. Progressives are our main weakness and vulnerability. The most interesting question is why they do arise in substantial numbers in the west and are seemingly strongest in Northwestern European countries and the societies they have founded.

Firstly, the progressives represent a stream of European thought, so it shouldn’t be surprising they are common in Europe.

As to why they are so influential, their ideas suit the establishment. Thus the establishment enables that movement at the expense of alternative systems of belief.

Why? Again history is a good way to understand why things are this way. After WWII ethno nationalism was discredited and the new American order required a pan national liberal consensus, what is now known as ‘The West’. This is a liberal capitalist order that depends on progressive liberal thought for it’s ideological legitimacy.

Those who control the institutions have the power to impose detrimental policies on the broader community. At least until the vital interests of too many people are compromised. Then the result is political instability. Any regime that can’t check its hubris will end up dealing with instability and will tend toward draconian measures to shore up their power. Hence why we are seeing liberal progressivism turning ugly.

‘White Privilege’ is one example of that oppressive ugliness. It is intended to disempower the targeted community.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Firstly, the progressives represent a stream of European thought, so it shouldn’t be surprising they are common in Europe.

As to why they are so influential, their ideas suit the establishment. Thus the establishment enables that movement at the expense of alternative systems of belief.

Why? Again history is a good way to understand why things are this way. After WWII ethno nationalism was discredited and the new American order required a pan national liberal consensus, what is now known as ‘The West’. This is a liberal capitalist order that depends on progressive liberal thought for it’s ideological legitimacy.

Those who control the institutions have the power to impose detrimental policies on the broader community. At least until the vital interests of too many people are compromised. Then the result is political instability. Any regime that can’t check its hubris will end up dealing with instability and will tend toward draconian measures to shore up their power. Hence why we are seeing liberal progressivism turning ugly.

‘White Privilege’ is one example of that oppressive ugliness. It is intended to disempower the targeted community.

For an idea to become established people need to be receptive to it to some extent. I'm sure Europeans had millions of ideas and beliefs over the decades and centuries but only a few stuck and rose to prominence, one of which is progressivism. This observation is not superficial but actually goes to the heart of the matter, as the establishment has nothing to exploit if there isn't a weakness in the population in the first place. Of course, what you say above isn't wrong, but it takes the fact that there was and is fertile ground for progressive ideas in Europeans for granted. I strongly doubt that these ideas could thrive anywhere else and for example Japan and East Asians in general certainly don't seem to have an affinity for it.

[foxdemon]

But isn't this what happens with every ideology, foxdemon? After all, capitalism itself began as a radically egalitarian ideal, being based as it is on the abstract ideal that all human beings are equal and interchangeable units, whether as producers or consumers, and that equality of economic opportunity will lead to a 'meritocratic' social hierarchy, in contrast to the hereditary, divinely ordained social stratification of feudalism. Even the business suit, today a symbol of wealth and power, began as a simplified, sober uniform to erase all distinctions of rank and privilege, as a negation of the silks and ruffles of the feudal aristocracy. Human beings love their privileges, and we cling ferociously to our distinctions of rank and status, no matter how petty and meaningless they may be. As Immanuel Kant put it, "Out of the warped wood of human nature, nothing straight was ever made."

Does this happen with every ideology? Or indeed theology? Those that begin on the basis of radical equality do seem to follow this pattern. The idea of equality is popularist. Popularism seems to be incapable of forming a stable system of governance and thus only serves to remove the old regime in favour of a new regime which then needs to crack down on notions of popular entitlement in order to consolidate power. And so the concepts of equality are redefined to that unequal ends.

Liberalism is a popularist ideology, though today transformed into the guard dog of the status quo. The British and the French ancien regime should never have let those wabble wousers get out of control.

And yes, Kant is completely correct.

You seem upset that I described you view as superficial. I didn’t mean to offend and I apologise if my language was to harsh.

You are correct that the idea must be accepted as a norm in the population before the establishment can take advantage of it. With progressivism, the idea is equality and meritocracy. For religion, the crucial idea might be God or original sin. These highly valued norms become strings to manipulate but also offer consolation for the deprived, a bit like an opiate for the masses. Umm, some else once wrote something along those lines, didn’t they?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You seem upset that I described you view as superficial. I didn’t mean to offend and I apologise if my language was to harsh.

No offence taken.

You are correct that the idea must be accepted as a norm in the population before the establishment can take advantage of it. With progressivism, the idea is equality and meritocracy. For religion, the crucial idea might be God or original sin. These highly valued norms become strings to manipulate but also offer consolation for the deprived, a bit like an opiate for the masses. Umm, some else once wrote something along those lines, didn’t they?

I'm not sure that equality and meritocracy are the central ideas of progressivism today - perhaps they used to be - but yes, some people will always attempt to exploit and manipulate if given the chance. This is not something that can be prevented. Hence the objective should be to make our societies less exploitable if possible.

Also, as far as the establishment is concerned, there are plenty of people among them who truly believe in progressive causes. We shouldn't make the mistake and view all of them as cynical and greedy or power hungry manipulators. There's a lot of genuine fervour and passion there too.

[Political Interest]

To deny that white privilege exists is to be completely delusional and ignorant of the world. With a German or US passport, you can travel freely to most countries, get a job and residence permit, or even live as expat better than many natives. Try to do that with a Somali passport and you'll immediately understand the difference. If you don't get killed, mugged or raped on the way, you'll most likely end up in the gutter no matter where you go.

And yet there are Africans living all over the world. Obviously having African passports did not prevent them from doing this.

And, maybe the reason Somalis will be more frequently refused entry is because the country is third world and very unstable. Germany and the US are relatively stable and wealthy in comparison. That is the real reason, not the race. Asians from wealthy countries can also travel freely and easily. Asians from poor countries have problems travelling freely. And it is the same in Europe. The poor European countries do not have favourable travel conditions to other countries.

To be aware of this fact is not pathological and has nothing to do with a guilty consciousness. On the contrary, it is the only way of justifying the privilege and of working towards greater equality.

Believing in white privilege is pathological. But, it doesn't surprise me that the ones who believe in it are mostly comfortable first world whites.

Deep down, most whites understand that they don't deserve the privilege.

Which privilege? The privilege to be shot at and bombed to pieces in two World Wars?

That's why they turn to racism and white supremacy to compensate their fear of losing it. Since hating non-whites isn't enough, they also hate the so-called elites, which they depend on for the very privilege they imagine to be their birthright. However, the source of white privilege is the knowledge revolution that started during the Renaissance. Those who are at the cutting edge of that revolution will have the privilege, no matter whether white, brown or green.

I suppose you think that opposing mass immigration is all to do with a fear of losing white privilege.

As for Western white expatriates living in Asia, I know about this type of people very well. They are the most luxurious types of people and live in complete luxury, air conditioned houses, drivers, private clubs, all the while espousing the most hypocritical cultural leftist ideas such as white privilege. They acknowledge and want to dismantle white privilege while at the same time benefiting from it. Hypocrisy.

[Atlantis]

And yet there are Africans living all over the world.

I doubt that they issued passports to slaves, and the non-whites accepted into the homeland of the colonial powers are a consequence of white colonial rule.

Which privilege? The privilege to be shot at and bombed to pieces in two World Wars?

The privilege of using most of the world's resources and the privilege of living in your safe compounds while the natives are being slaughtered outside the gate.

If anything, the world wars are the fault of white supremacists, it is not something that has been done to whites by others.

I suppose you think that opposing mass immigration is all to do with a fear of losing white privilege.

As for Western white expatriates living in Asia, I know about this type of people very well. They are the most luxurious types of people and live in complete luxury, air conditioned houses, drivers, private clubs, all the while espousing the most hypocritical cultural leftist ideas such as white privilege. They acknowledge and want to dismantle white privilege while at the same time benefiting from it. Hypocrisy.

I'm obviously not talking about the privileged few living in their green compounds. I'm talking about lower-class whites who fear immigrant newcomers in their community.

You are mixing up many things here an add a good doses of personal resentment, which makes a rational discussion somewhat of an adventurous undertaking.

[Rich]

To deny that white privilege exists is to be completely delusional and ignorant of the world. With a German or US passport, you can travel freely to most countries, get a job and residence permit, or even live as expat better than many natives. Try to do that with a Somali passport and you'll immediately understand the difference.

That's not White privilege that's German or American privilege. A Black German can travel the world the same as a White German. You have more chance of going to one of America's top universities if you're Black than if you're a White Gentile.

Racism is where you discriminate against someone because of who their parents were. I don't have the same opportunity to be king as Prince Charles or prince William. I have no right to live work or vote in the united States. that's disgusting racist discrimination. Why should Obama have had the right to stand for President when I don't.

There's plenty of injustice we must all choose which injustices we are going to attack and which we are going to ignore.

To be aware of this fact is not pathological and has nothing to do with a guilty consciousness. On the contrary, it is the only way of justifying the privilege and of working towards greater equality.

in other words Middle and upper class White progressive make themselves feel better, by screwing over the White lower classes.

[Godstud]

A Black German can travel the world the same as a White German.

He'd get murdered by the police like any other black man if he went to USA.

[Igor Antunov]

Nah, more likely he'd be murdered by black gangbangers;



Police don't even register on the shooting radar compared to the number of shootings American blacks commit.

[Atlantis]

That's not White privilege that's German or American privilege. A Black German can travel the world the same as a White German.

Even if there is equality before the law, it doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist. The same applies to the value of your passport. The handful of black people with a German passport legally has the same rights as a German. They will nevertheless often be treated differently. If a black person travels with a German passport, there will first of all be incredulity and most people will assume that he isn't really German and just got the passport somehow, just like people start to speak pidgin German when they meet a colored person, no matter for how many generations his family has been in Germany. That discrimination will often be felt in all aspects of life including in job applications, flat hunting, police checks, etc. Colored people often face discrimination.

Aside from domestic inequality, there is also international inequality. For historic reasons, whites still largely determine the rules of international affairs to their own advantage. If white privilege in international affairs were to be challenged, it will most likely by the Chinese, which won't exactly improve things. That's why it is hilarious that white supremacists are so infatuated with Asians, as living proof that colored people are inferior.

Let's face it, the international elite doesn't care about xenophobia. They'll survive no matter what color. It's the big masses of whites that turns racist because they realize that their privileges are not earned and that less privileged non-whites will take their place given half a chance.

[ArtAllm]

Why do people never talk about the religious background of the most privileged whites???

[Rich]

But isn't this what happens with every ideology, foxdemon? After all, capitalism itself began as a radically egalitarian ideal, being based as it is on the abstract ideal that all human beings are equal and interchangeable units, whether as producers or consumers, and that equality of economic opportunity will lead to a 'meritocratic' social hierarchy, in contrast to the hereditary, divinely ordained social stratification of feudalism.

Look at what you've just written here. Its total idealist nonsense. Private property, profit and accumulation can be traced back thousands of years to the first civilisations. In fact they can even be inferred from the proto writing systems which concerned book keeping, not the divine order. A big shift particularly in Britain was the Black Death an unanticipated material event not a philosopher / theologians idea. It decisively shifted power from the owners of capital to those who made their living through labour. huge develoments in finance took place in Northern Italy in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They arguably had the first mass production factory long, long before Paine "discovered" the rights of man.

Marxism really is the big lie. The most absurd idealism and voluntarism trying to sell it self as materialist and scientific.

[Rancid]

Why do people never talk about the religious background of the most privileged whites???

Tell us about it.

[Rich]

So was the first slave owner in the thirteen Colonies evil because he was White?

[Political Interest]

I doubt that they issued passports to slaves, and the non-whites accepted into the homeland of the colonial powers are a consequence of white colonial rule.

There are Africans living all throughout Asia and the non-colonial parts of Europe. For example, in Russia there as probably many Englishman as there are Nigerians.

And in Asia it is not race that determines admission there. There are as many wealthy Korean and Japanese businessmen in South East Asia as there are Europeans.

The privilege of using most of the world's resources and the privilege of living in your safe compounds while the natives are being slaughtered outside the gate.

Maybe you forgot that Europe was the place of slaughter before 1945. It was a place of war, poverty and revolution, not very different to Asia in many ways.

The myth of some sort of perennial European stability is nothing more than the product of decades of comfort following WWII, which is a highly unnatural state of affairs.

If anything, the world wars are the fault of white supremacists, it is not something that has been done to whites by others.

It's not important who is at fault. The fact is, Europeans living in very poor conditions went to fight and died in their hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions in these European wars. It was not a privilege. Life in Europe before the 1960s was not some sort of song and joy. And, it amazes me how a German does not understand this considering how much Germany suffered through the early 20th century. One could hardly call the Germans of the time privileged.

I'm obviously not talking about the privileged few living in their green compounds. I'm talking about lower-class whites who fear immigrant newcomers in their community.

In any country, regardless of the race of the majority, there is going to be anxiety over immigration.

You are mixing up many things here an add a good doses of personal resentment, which makes a rational discussion somewhat of an adventurous undertaking.

When did I add any personal resentment against you?