Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes

 

American Eagle’s current ad campaign for their jeans featuring Sydney Sweeney is getting a lot of attention. Not all favourable. Some are objecting to it as being full of “Nazi” or “Fascist” “dogwhistles.” 

This puzzled me at first, but now I think I get it. It is seen as a celebration of “white superiority.” In one short, Sweeney starts by saying she is a product of her genes. Including her eye color. The camera wanders down to her cleavage. “Eyes—up here,” she says. The camera moves to her blue eyes. She says “My jeans [genes?] are blue.” Then the overlay, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.”

This supposedly endorses eugenics, and the supposed superiority of “white” genes. Never a Fascist idea, but a Nazi one.

This objection is itself racist, however, unless you would also object to a black model, or a Native American model, being featured in the same way, as having “great genes.” It can be no more than a thought experiment, but I cannot imagine anyone doing so. 

But it is “white” people who are being discriminated against if they are not permitted to be called beautiful or have their genes praised.

You might counter with a claim about white privilege, some ancient wrong that needs to be redressed.

But Sydney Sweeney has no white privilege. 

Sydney Sweeney is Irish. At least until the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, most educated people were aware of historic discrimination against the Irish; those who did not despise the Irish themselves. Attending university in Canada in the 1970s, the student newspaper ran an editorial titled “Let’s Sink Ireland for a Day”—an actual call, if not entirely serious, for genocide. There was no blowback. I have been told several times by women that they had promised their parents never to bring home an Irishman. T.S. Eliot used Sydney Sweeney’s very own surname in these lines to describe an Irish character in 1920: 

Apeneck Sweeney spread his knees
Letting his arms hang down to laugh,
The zebra stripes along his jaw
Swelling to maculate giraffe.

The Irish were never considered by the larger Anglo world part of any master race with superior genes. More often as a separate, subhuman race. 

There is a reason so many “black” Americans have Irish surnames. Look at Mariah Carey. Look at Rhiannon Giddens. They are probably half Irish. Irish and blacks were long considered the same social class, and commonly intermarried.

“Dumb Blonde” jokes may be part of this continuing prejudice—and such jokes are still perfectly permissible in polite company. As are comments like “do gingers have souls?” 

Talk about blackface? How about whiteface—the usual clown makeup. Note the red hair. The conventional North American clown is actually a stage Irishman, including the bulbous red nose suggesting a drinking habit. An ethnic stereotype.

It is time the Irish had a right to celebrate their genes, and their beauty.

The Real World of White Privilege

 

Most things most people pretend to believe are the opposite of the truth; for most people are in denial, and the Devil rules this world.

One example is “white privilege”: the idea that white people, and Asian people, have it easier from birth because they are given special advantages due to the colour of their skin.

I teach Chinese and Korean students. I have lived in China and Korea. I can attest that the life of an East Asian child is hell. I have had to watch kids beaten in front of me; over the Internet. I have had to try to teach kids unable to keep their eyes open, taking extra tuition on weekends, first thing in the morning,  and late into the night.

Jewish parents are similarly demanding. I have just finished “Maus” and Kafka’s “Metamorphosis” with my students. Either suggests the hell of a Jewish childhood. As does Cohen’s “Favourite Game.” If it isn’t the hypercritical father, it is the Jewish mother smothering you, making constant demands.

To a lesser extent Anglo and other “white” parents are demanding of their children. They allow them relatively little time for idle childhood fun: for listening to their favourite music, for playing with friends, for hanging out. They may go out for sports; but then they must bring home trophies.

By contrast, very little pressure is put on black kids or aboriginal kids. In part because many do not have a father around; but either aboriginal or African childrearing was always culturally relaxed. They get to be kids and do as they like growing up. They get praised and coddled. They are brought up to think they are wonderful, and deserve anything.

There is a similar contrast in how we raise boys and girls. Little girls are always adored, given the benefit of any doubt, and treated like princesses. Little boys get suspected of the worst and criticized. One of my earliest memories is of being driven out of a public playground, that I had innocently entered, and before I could actually do anything, by adults, because there were girls playing there, and “boys play too rough.”

This harsher treatment in childhood, this lack of parental warmth, may or may not lead to success in later life. Some are destroyed by it.

But it is certain that these white, Jewish, Asian, and/or male kids are not brought up with “privilege.” It is the black and aboriginal kids, and the girls, who are accorded privileges they did not earn.

Being used to privilege, they continue to demand it in adulthood, and cry injustice if they do not get it. The white, Asian, and Jewish men just grit their teeth, accept the expected abuse, and get back to the grindstone.

White Privilege: A History

 

A friend posted on Facebook his regrets for his “white privilege.” “Know your history,” he prodded. And a lot of others chimed in with their woke assent. Virtue was roundly signaled.

I wish he did know his history. The myth of “white privilege” has emerged and is possible only because the left first went through our schools and suppressed the teaching of history. As with most things, the official line is the opposite of the truth. There is non-white privilege. There is no white privilege.

At the present day, demonstrably, in Canada, “non-whites” are systemically privileged over whites. Special aboriginal rights are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without this special exemption, the preferences given to aboriginals would be in violation of the equality rights given in the charter.

The complex of “affirmative action” preferences in government programs, education, and corporations are a blatant violation of equality rights. They ought to have been challenged long ago. Nobody has. Such is the overriding power of non-white privilege.

One might argue that such special benefits are needed to counterbalance discrimination in the wider society—some hypothetical society beyond government, the media, the corporations, and the education system. Perhaps the alleyways? Perhaps the schoolyard at recess?

Yet even at a social gathering, it is socially acceptable to mock “rednecks,” but not aboriginals or blacks. It is socially acceptable to mock Christians, or “bible thumpers,” or evangelicals, but not Muslims. It is socially acceptable to complain about Americans, or the English, or Europeans, or whites, but not Blacks or Indians or South Asians.

Even in the past, when it was okay to mock Indians or Chinese or blacks, it was at least as socially acceptable and as common to mock the Irish, the Scottish, the Polish, the Ukrainians, the Italians, or the Jews. All white, or considered “white” today.

The proponents of the premise of “white privilege” will no doubt counter that all such current forms of discrimination and non-white privilege are merely “equity,” a leg up for past discrimination against non-whites. Even if this discrimination was against individuals now long dead, it supposedly leaves marks and social inequities that persist today. 

The idea, then, that Canadian history has discriminated against non-whites. 

I challenge that, firstly on the basis that “white” and “non-white” are terms that would have meant nothing to our ancestors. This particular racial division emerged in the US and in South Africa, particularly in reference to the Civil Rights movement and apartheid, about the middle of the twentieth century. These were never meaningful categories in Canadian society, if only because few Canadians had come in much contact with anyone not of European ancestry. There was little chance to discriminate against people not present, and “white” or “non-white” was not top of anyone’s concerns.

Rather, popular discrimination in Canada was on the grounds of religion, language, and ethnicity. No Irish need apply, for example.

You might argue that, if Canada lacked Africans, they had the “First Nations.” But the treaties and the Indian Act always systemically favoured the First Nations. A survey of Canadian literature and popular culture demonstrates that, far from denigrating Indians, Canadian culture has always elevated them as romantic and heroic, and identified with them.

Canada has also had East Asians in significant numbers, for at least as long as Canada has been in legal existence. Probably every small town across English Canada has long had one or two or more Chinese families. And they have certainly faced discrimination: head taxes. The Japanese were interned during the Second World War.

But about that internment. It was not a case of racism; perhaps of ethnicity. For Ukrainians were similarly interned during the First World War, and even during the second, the majority of internees were not Japanese. Germans and Italians were also interred. The fact that the Japanese internment is remembered as something special is arguably an example of modern race preference, not past racial discrimination.

And, counter to theory, despite discrimination in the recent past, Asian-Canadians are doing better in Canada today than most demographic groups. And many current “equity” programs discriminate against them, just as they discriminate against “whites.”

And as to past white privilege, by all means, read your history. Read about how most of the ancestors of the “white settlers” came. Read about indentured servitude, read about the Great Hunger, read about the Highland Clearances. Read about the expulsion of the Acadians, read about the Home Children, read about the Holodomir, read about the Holocaust. Then tell me that white Canadians benefit from historic privilege due to the colour of their skin. 

For these are the backgrounds from which the great majority of European Canadians descend. They were not members of a wealthy upper class, as more recent immigrants tend to be.

Those who might be doing well today have worked their way up from ancestral backgrounds as dark as those of any non-Europeans. Most arrived in Canada destitute, many in bondage.

Apart from the history, if only we taught literature in our schools, we would know better than to believe in “white privilege.”

Let’s look only at the issue of indentured servitude. Up to the American Revolution, two thirds of all European immigrants to the British possessions in the New World came as indentured servants.

I quote from the first paragraph of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” describijng life in 18th century Dublin. The piece is satire, but for the satire to land, it has to be accurate in its description of actual life in Ireland.

“These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.”

What is that about? Sell yourself to the Barbadoes?

And all this well before the Great Famine.

And again:

“I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl, before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when they come to this age, they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half a crown at most, on the exchange.”

What? Children and teenagers were bought and sold? And so cheap?

They were then shipped out to the so-called “settler colonies” as indentured servants. On Christian principles, they were only selling their labour, not themselves. But in practice, they lived the same lives in the same conditions as the African slaves for the fourteen years of their servitude.

Indeed, quite likely worse lives. An African slave was yours for life; it made sense to preserve his health. But if you have him for only another few years, it makes financial sense to work him to death.

Have you ever noticed how many “African-Americans” have Irish-sounding surnames? Shaquille O’Neill. Bill Cosby. John Coltrane. Countee Cullen. Marcus Garvey.

Did you ever wonder why?

The black slaves and the Irish indentures lived and worked together. They naturally intermarried.

Fourteen years of slavery might not sound so terrible. But the average lifespan for an Englishman in the 18th century was 34 years. It was surely lower in Ireland, due to poverty and malnourishment. Fourteen of those years was therefore significant. In fact, more than half of indentured servants died in servitude.

Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1834. Indentured servitude was banned in Canada only in 1917.

And who owes whom reparations for that? Should the grandchildren of slaves be paying reparations to the great-great grandchildren of slaves held in some other country?

More Christian Privilege

 

"American Progress," 1872. Note that it is a neo-pagan Classical goddess, "Colombia," and not Jesus, leading the settlers westward in the popular imagination.

An American professor of (of course) education, Khyati Joshi, has published a book against “white Christian privilege.” Joshi, a Hindu, is fairly obviously jockeying for position in the caste system called intersectionality. She maintains that even non-white Christians, black or Hispanic, have unearned privilege over her as a Hindu. She claims that there is “systemic religious oppression over the history of” the United States.

This is odd, since the US, unlike many countries, has no established religion or church, and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience in its constitution. One would think “Christian privilege” is far less an issue in the US than, say, Muslim privilege in Pakistan, Buddhist privilege in Thailand, or Hindu privilege in India. My friend Xerxes, in fact, in his most recent column wrote about the persecution of Christians in modern India.

Joshi claims this constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion is an “illusion,” and cites court cases that ruled against the religious demands of members of minority religions. She ignores court cases that ruled against the religious demands of Christians. Nor does she examine the legal arguments.

Among the ills Joshi blames on Christian privilege are the idea of “manifest destiny,” and slavery, which she claims has “Biblical justification.”

Neither of these have anything in particular to do with Christianity. Manifest destiny was not a religious concept, and did not emerge from theologians or pastors. It was a political slogan, first proposed by a newspaperman, and embraced by some politicians. These as a matter of course appealed to “Providence” to justify their claim to a right to expand the US westward. But they were not religious authorities. Anyone is going to appeal to Providence to justify any political idea, especially one that might be challenged on moral grounds. The signers of the Declaration of Independence similarly called on Providence to justify their concept of a new state based on freedom and equality; so if one is going to credit manifest destiny to Christianity, one must credit freedom and human equality, including freedom of religion, to it as well. Except that the latter idea, unlike the former, indeed originated with and was endorsed by religious authorities.

Manifest Destiny was a minority political opinion, not itself hegemonic. Canada similarly expanded westward without any such doctrine. So did Australia or Argentina; while Russia expanded East. Greece and Phoenicia expanded West across the Mediterranean long before Christianity was thought of. Untilled land next door tends to get settled.

Similarly, slavery was no Christian institution. It was endemic across the world, and least common in Christian countries. Of course defenders of slavery tried to justify themselves as well as they could from the Bible. But it was Christian nations, most notably Britain, that determined to end it everywhere. And this was an explicitly Christian enterprise, led by Quakers and evangelicals. Far earlier, the Pope in Rome had declared slavery illicit.

Nor does Joshi note that there is clear warrant for slavery in the Hindu Vedas.

What manifestly needs to be ended is not Christian privilege, but education schools.

 

White Privilege

White privilege.

Friend Xerxes has recently weighed in on “white privilege.” 

Don’t believe you have any “white privilege”? He gives examples.

“-no one has ever called you a racial epithet.”

I’d guess that is more likely to be true for non-whites. But it depends largely on what we are prepared to declare a “racial epithet.” In the media, or at any social gathering, it is unacceptable to use any number of terms referring to blacks or most other groups designated “non-white.” But there seem to be no particular terms referring to whites that have been ruled beyond the pale. Not “cracker,” not “honky.” Nobody blinks at the term “redneck.” That’s racial epithet based explicitlyon skin colour. Only pale-skinned people get a red neck from working in the sun. Other anti-white racial slurs that are common enough, and unremarked on, in media and polite society are “hillbilly,” “white trash,” or “WASP.”

By contrast, even essentially neutral terms about non-white groups have been declared beyond the pale. Witness the current turmoil over teams named “Edmonton Eskimos” or “Washington Redskins” or “McGill Redmen.” Yet nobody troubles about the Minnesota Vikings, the New York Yankees, or the Queen’s Golden Gaels. Nobody objects to “Caucasian,” but the two parallel old scientific racial designations “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” have both been declared out of bounds. Nobody objects to “Westerner,” yet the parallel “Oriental” has been declared offensive.

Include such terms, and I warrant either you or I have been referred to by racial epithets far more often than most non-whites. We must be forever careful how we speak of non-whites; nobody needs to be careful of how they speak of “whites.”

Scott Adams make the case that the very term “white privilege” is a racial epithet comparable to “nigger.” It is reminiscent of claims historically used against the Jews—of “blood guilt,” or of them colluding to control everything and give each other special privileges. To say someone has “white privilege” is to look at them and say “you owe me something, because of the colour of your skin.” Yet everyone thinks it is perfectly fine to use.

Never mind. Xerxes has other examples of “white privilege”:

- "Nobody ever suggested that I shouldn’t go to university. Although, interestingly enough, that suggestion was made to my wife -- the first person in her extended family ever to seek higher education. "

Xerxes here expresses the truth apparently without realizing it: the issue about going to university is a class issue, not a race issue. In the working class, it is often seen as some kind of betrayal of your own identity, to go to university. Not only is this unrelated to race; it is also mostly self-imposed, not something imposed by the wider society.

Just the reverse: the actions of the wider society, for non-whites, is all the other way. Across the US and Canada, black or Hispanic students are given places in universities, and scholarships, with lower marks and SAT scores coming out of high school than are “white” students. As a necessary result, poor white students who might otherwise have gone are barred from going. This is a far more serious, and systemic, racial discrimination than simply having your parents or your buddies suggest you not go.

Of course, Xerxes also brings up the police.

- “I have never been pulled over by police on suspicion. If I’ve been pulled over, it was for some clear violation, such as speeding. Or failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian.”

It is an objective, statistically demonstrable fact that blacks and aboriginals are more likely to get pulled over by the police than are whites. If this is about being “non-white,” however, how account for the fact that East Asians are also far less likely to be pulled over? It is equally an objective, statistically demonstrable fact, that blacks and aboriginals are much more likely to commit crimes than are whites or Asians, street crimes of the sort that lead to being pulled over. It is a statistical certainty that they are more likely to fit the profile of someone the police are looking for as a suspect in a serious crime. It may be an unfair burden on innocent blacks or aboriginals, but it is not the fault of the police or the wider society.

- “I’ve never been roughly treated by cops. As soon as I open my mouth, it’s obvious I belong to the educated classes.”

Again Xerxes reveals the truth without seeming to be aware of it himself: as soon as he opens his mouth. Not about skin colour, is it? It’s about how you speak. It’s about class. A scruffy-looking, unshaven white man with a heavy Southern or South Boston accent who immediately acts belligerent would probably be treated the same as an unshaven black man wearing clothing obviously inappropriate for an office job, speaking ebonics and sounding threatening. But as soon as an well-spoken black man wearing a suit and tie, an Arthur Ashe or a Barack Obama, opened their mouth, they would probably be treated well.

- “I have never been turned down for a hotel room, or barred from a restaurant.”

Xerxes must mean because of race, since otherwise the experience of being turned away from a restaurant or motel is common.

But neither has any non-white person in Canada or the US who is younger than seventy or so. This has been illegal in the US since the Civil Right Act of 1964. If it happened, one could get satisfaction in a court of law. If it happened anyway, you can’t blame society. Society does not condone murder, either, yet sometimes it happens.

- “I have never felt that the books I read ignore or belittle my experience.”

This one is delusional. Hey, average “white” reader, how much of your own life experience is reflected in Harry Potter? Star Wars? James Bond? 1001 Arabian Nights? Gulliver’s Travels? Robinson Crusoe? Moby Dick? Treasure Island? Peter Pan? The Last of the Mohicans?

Fiction sells because it lets people imagine lives entirely different from their own. That is the whole point of fiction. Any non-white, i.e., “minority,” writer has a huge advantage—one might say “privilege” —in this regard. It is enormously easier for them to get published and to sell their books.

As to non-fiction: no book published today would dare to ignore “non-white” experience. Have you had a look at the textbooks your children are reading at school?

In fact, white ethnicities, by contrast, are generally ignored.

Xerxes quotes in support of his claim of “white privilege” a young black woman of his acquaintance saying “In order to see me and who I am and will always be, in order to truly acknowledge what is going on with the black community around the world, you HAVE to see my colour!”

She is arguing directly against Martin Luther King, who said “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Why have so many blacks reversed themselves since the 1960s? Then they wanted to be treated as the same, and fought colour distinctions. And why, over the same period, have many whites gone from seeing skin colour as important to claiming it is not?

The answer is obvious. Human nature is human nature. If you can claim some privilege because of the colour of your skin, you want people to notice the colour of your skin. If it does nothing for you, or even works to your disadvantage, you don’t want people to make anything of it.

This pudding proves there is no “white privilege”; there is black privilege.

The present system privileges non-whites—as in, “systemic racism.” It gets them into a better university, and may get them scholarship money or extra government funding. When they graduate, it puts them at the head of the queue for a nice government or corporate job, thanks to “affirmative action” and “diversity quotas”—hiring preferences for non-whites. Then their skin colour puts them on the fast track for promotion.

Xerxes then quotes another black woman saying “Many of my friends -- especially the white ones -- have no idea what I’ve experienced/dealt with unless they were present (and aware) when it happened.”

This illustrates why we are generally not aware of the systemic discrimination against whites, and many of us think, like Xerxes, that it is all the other way.

White people can indeed have little ideas what it is really like to live life as a non-white. But by the same token, non-white people can have little idea what it is really like to live life as a white. It may be either better or worse. We simply hear non-whites complaining loudly; perhaps only because the wider society has given them full sanction to do so. Remember the nursery wisdom of “The Princess and the Pea.”

Unless we go with statistics or, better yet, the actual laws, government programs, and stated corporate policies, we are only guessing.

The statistics show that some “non-white” groups are less materially successful than “whites”; and others are more successful. This is not evidence of discrimination. At the same time, actual laws, government programs and corporate policies do not support any claims of “white privilege.”

White Privilege

Readers may have been following the current “fake news” surrounding the boys of Covington (Kentucky) Catholic School, in Washington for the March for Life. Initial media reports were that they had surrounded and harassed an old Indian man there to protest for Indian causes.

And absolutely everyone immediately condemned them. Not just the big outlets like the New York Times and CNN; also right-wing sources like National Review. The school’s principal apologized. The mayor of Covington apologized. The bishop of Covington apologized. People on Twitter were openly calling for the kids, 14 and 15 year olds, to be beaten up or killed.

And it turns out they were just minding their own business, waiting for a bus home. They were first harassed with racist taunts by a group of black militants, calling them “crackers,” “school shooters” and the like. Then the Indians marched right into them and the old guy started banging his drum and chanting loudly right under one kid’s nose. Another Indian next to him told them all to “go back to Europe.”

And mostly all the Catholic schoolkids seemed to do was keep smiling, stay calm, and try to ignore them.

All of this you perhaps already know.

I bring it up because it illustrates the true “white privilege.”

When the original story broke, everyone condemned the kids—just kids--without hearing their side of the story, or taking the trouble to see extended video of the action. Why? Apparently simply because they were white.

Even the short clip on which all the original condemnation was based was perfectly ambiguous. It showed the old Indian nose to nose with a Catholic kid. But who was getting into whose face? Who approached whom, and who was simply standing their ground? That you cannot tell.

The kid was smiling and avoiding eye contact. The old Indian looked angry, and was loudly chanting and banging on a drum. Even in the absence of other evidence, it seems to me that the more reasonable judgment would be that it was the old Indian who was being aggressive.

Nevertheless, everyone immediately and unquestioningly condemned the white kid.

There’s white male privilege. It is the “privilege” of being assaulted by anyone while you are simply minding your own business. It is the privilege of being blamed, possibly your life ruined, just for standing on a corner in public. Nobody listens to your side—you are condemned on sight without trial or defense.

By comparison, blacks in the video visibly exploit the privilege of being openly racist, spouting absurd and prejudiced conspiracy theories about whites killing blacks to harvest their organs. Without being called on this by anyone.

Indians have the further privilege of being believed without question no matter what they say. Nobody even bothers to check their assertions, although it is standard journalistic practice to do so.

White males have only the privilege of being blamed. Of course, why not, they are in control of everything, right?

That myth simply allows them to be scapegoated at will.

Just as were, once, the Jews.

White Privilege

Evidence of white privilege on display at Auschwitz

The dogma of “white privilege” seems to have fixed now hard as cement on the left. It can be used, of course, to justify any sort of discrimination against someone with white skin.

Are we all aware that this tactic has been used before, many times?

It is, in fact, the alibi for most historical genocides. They are usually represented as a matter of “getting our own back,” of evening the score for supposed past harm or discrimination. This almost has to be so, for some such alibi is needed to quiet the human conscience. No massacre is ever presented as unprovoked.

Here are a few notes on the Jews from a Nazi party monthly for propagandists, circa 1936:

“There are still Jewish lackeys today who attempt to disrupt our storm attack on the Jewish world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them.”

Note the Nazi claim that the Jews ruled the world. Just as “whites” are claimed to today. This is what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were all about: the supposed Jewish hegemony. The system had been rigged in their favour, and to oppress poor ordinary Germans.

“Even if a few hundred Jewish families in Germany really did have to go hungry, what is that against the many millions of German families that the Jew murdered over the course of centuries through wars, revolutions, and civil strife, not to mention those ruined through usury and fraud.”

Reparations were due. Yeah. What about slavery? What about European colonialism? You know the drill. “White” people are responsible for all of history’s wars, not to mention raping the world through capitalism, through “usury and fraud.”

(Quotes from Kurt Hilmar Eitzen, “Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte,” Unser Wille und Weg 6, 1936, pp. 309-310).

Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi chief of ideology, wrote,

“It is almost a miracle that absolutely nothing has happened to Jews in Germany, but rather that only gradually the rights they stole from the Germans in politics and culture have been restored.”

Nothing sinister here. Just poor exploited Aryans finally getting their own back.

The same dynamic gave us the Rwanda genocide of the 1990s. The Tutsis had been dominant in Rwandan politics before and during the colonial period. And so, the Rwandan Patriotic Front spread the notion that the Tutsis were oppressors.

In the end, when they came to power, 70 percent of the Tutsis in Rwanda were massacred.

The same claim of “getting our own back,” if not “reverse racism” specifically, is of course always behind the Communist genocides: in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia. Collectively, these are probably the worst the world has ever seen. The bourgeois have, according to Marxist doctrine, been exploiting the workers. And so they ought to all be put to death. Just evening the score.

This is the road down which we travel. This is the ideology Antifa is attempting to enforce by violence in the streets.

Don’t pretend it isn’t.

White Male Privilege

Let’s talk about white male privilege. We all know its an awful thing, but there is a question that obviously needs to be asked. Where does it come from? Who, exactly, is privileging white males?

It's not blacks, is it? It’s not people of colour. That seems unlikely. In fact, didn’t blacks vote for Obama, himself black, in unprecedented numbers—93% in 2012, 95% in 2008? Don’t they tend to call other blacks “brothers”? Doesn’t this imply that they are favouring other blacks?

Suppose they really are privileging whites. Then they need to be alerted. There is no need to tell white males to “check your privilege.” Wrong audience.

Is it women who are privileging white males? Like blacks, feminist women who endorse the idea of male privilege, tend to address one another as “sister,” and speak of solidarity. They call women who did not vote for Hillary Clinton “traitors.”

So, is the concept of white male privilege merely a complaint that white males prefer and favour other white males—in the same way blacks are urged to favour other blacks, and women other women?

Granted that this is a bad thing, how can it be only bad if white males do it, but righteous if anyone else does it?

Is it because white males are powerful, and these other groups are not? But that seems tautological: how then did white males become “powerful”? If it was, in turn, because they were “privileged” by someone, who privileged them? And if this prior group had the power to “privilege” someone, where did that come from? Infinite regression? 

But if they once were not powerful, and became so by the systematic privileging of one another, isn't that just what blacks and women are calling on each other to do? 

So why shouldn't the white males do the same?

You might say it is because white men are a majority. Others mentioned are “visible minorities.”

Except they are not. Women are an absolute majority. White males make up about 30% of the US population. If this is the determining factor, the problem to address is female privilege, not white male privilege.

I think it is true that white males have, historically, done well. Science, liberal democracy, material progress, literature, the arts, that sort of thing. But is that “privilege”?

Or envy?

Isn’t the problem the same the issue of Jewish “privilege” in Germany? Why is it that Jews seem to run all the big stores, dominate the banks, the professions and universities, seem so often rich?

They have obviously been privileged. Perhaps by the Nazi government?

Harvard Students Advocate White Suicide

http://eagnews.org/video-harvard-students-debate-whether-whites-should-kill-themselves-due-to-privilege/