Privilege and Critical Race Theory

Privilege theory seeks to ask what people are owed. In liberal western societies such as our own, people are thought to be owed equality and a degree of self-autonomy/freedom. Since equality and freedom are the central principles of liberalism, when population groups fail to perform at the same level as others, those of liberal mindsets naturally conclude that the rights of the underperforming group have been violated. Those who are conservative interpret the failings of population groups as the result of the choices of the individuals who make up said group. The conservatives believe that equality is guaranteed through political and economic freedom, and thus individuals are able to will themselves to either success or failure. Both the liberals and the conservatives are liberals. They both believe in the Enlightenment, democracy, equality, and an unrestricted freedom of the individual. Conservatives may refer to themselves as “classical liberals”, but all this means is that they affirm a previous form of liberalism, a previous form that was supplanted by the liberals who sought to take liberalism to the natural conclusion of the principles it precipitated. One cannot oppose liberalism with liberalism, regardless of its age or the form that it takes.

Privilege theory or intersectionality ‘studies’ the supposed interrelation between an individual’s race, class, sexuality, disability and every other identifiable trait they may possess, in relation to their performance within society. To privilege theorists, one’s natural traits dictate how they function in society, not because said traits may be advantageous or disadvantageous, but because society is structured in such a way to only permit individuals with certain traits to succeed. People who have such traits are seen as ‘privileged’ because they are seen as having unjustly and inequitably benefited from a system that affirms them and those like them, whilst denying those who are not. Thus, those who succeed within society do so via the exploitation and disenfranchisement of the less successful. For someone to succeed, they need to be white, straight, and male, or they need to deny aspects of themselves to better fit in with the patriarchal, capitalist, misogynistic, white supremacist culture of Europe and North America. Thus, those who succeed are oppressors and need to be dis-empowered so that those who are without privilege may be elevated.

Now granted, ‘privilege’ does exist in certain respects. Societies and civilizations are constructed by and in the interest of the plurality. The mechanisms of society are constructed to serve the needs of the normative because it is they who contribute and comprise the society. For example, someone with a mental or physical disability is going to have difficulty within any society in which they find themselves, because civilization is constructed under the assumption that the majority of those within it are physically and mentally sound. This is not ‘fair’; however, this unfairness does not stem from the policies of the civilization but from the ordinances of nature and probability, via which the disabled person was scorned. This does not mean that we as individuals or the society as a whole scorn them also, as it is a good society which cares for those who are disabled. After all, all people are entitled to life, and should be encouraged to work towards their betterment, regardless of the hard limitations placed upon them by biology. Believing that a human society can negate disability is ridiculous, and if achieving equality becomes the central tenant of a civilization, then it can only be achieved by disabling or hindering the norm. ‘Equality’ does not exist, people are not equal, and they are not created equal. Yes, as a man of faith I ascribe to an equality and value of the human person and soul, but said metaphysical equality does not translate over to physical or mental ability. Humans are not all equally capable and do not have the same potential. Institutions, culture, laws, and politics cannot change this reality.

Societies exists to perpetuate themselves and they do this by rewarding the advantageous behaviours of individuals. Individuals who conform are united to a community in which all members benefit. For example, it is not advantageous for homosexuality or transgenderism to exist because they do not perpetuate the society in any way. In fact, the LGBT community as a whole is parasitical in that they create their own separate communities to leach off of the wider society, by consuming its resources without replenishing it via the normal means. As the adage goes, “homosexuals reproduce by touching children”. Therefore, it was the natural response for the majority to reject and be wary of homosexuality, as that lifestyle represents an evolutionary dead end, one that expends valuable medical and ethical resources within society. Alas, this anti-LGBT instinct is still present and, in all likeliness, will be impossible to counteract completely. As such, our society needs to be propagandized so as to normalize the lurid behaviours of that group. Homosexuals are now objectively one of the most privileged and venerated identities within western culture, yet they are still presented as oppressed, weak, and marginalized. The LGBT movement seeks not to correct injustice or to change society, but rather it wishes to recreate society in its image, and to punish those who do not affirm the normalcy of their ways.

Privilege theory is most known today in the form of critical race theory (CRT). CRT adherents believe that the west is white supremacist, meaning that ‘people of colour’ are disadvantaged within western countries. If you look at demographics, this would appear to be the case, as those who are European or of European descent appear to be more successful than the majority of minority racial groups, success referring to wealth, family stability, happiness, and incarceration rates. Yet, there are certain racial minority groups that seem to do very well in European societies, these being Jews and east Asians. If race in and of itself is not the cause for certain groups performing better than others, maybe it is the specific traits of certain groups that determine societal success. Western societies were created by Europeans in accordance with European social, political, religious, and cultural traditions. Our traditions are unique and designed primarily for people such as ourselves. It is no surprise that those who do not share in the European tradition would have difficulty assimilating and maximizing their potential within societies designed by and for another people. Even the western concept of multiculturalism is not universally inclusive, because the diversity of multiculturalism was meant to reflect the diversity of Europe and not that of the whole world. Western societies were created by a population that had an average IQ of 100 and had certain European political traditions. It is foolish to assume that those with a lower IQ and no shared traditions would be able to function at the same level as the native European population.

Different people groups or race have adapted to live and succeed within their own native environments and under circumstances familiar to them. This is neither good nor bad, but merely the state of things. Since environment and circumstances influence reproduction and genetics, it is more difficult for those of distant racial groups to achieve in alien societies. Those races that have comparable or higher IQ scores would be more inclined to succeed within European societies, although cultural impediments can arise. Under liberalism, we assume that there is a fundamental equality of the races, that each race is just as capable in every way as the others. This is not true and a society that believes this must, out of necessity, believe in the existence of pervasive societal racism to explain how the majority white population is able to surpass that of the minorities. The alternative would be to admit that equality is a false axiom, which would call into question the fundamental belief of most Europeans. People are not equally capable and they do not have the same desires. Liberalism is totalitarian, as it believes itself to be the ultimate goal of all people. Liberal democracy and enlightenment values are seen as the pinnacle of sociopolitical development, and universal for a society. Alas, as we have seen in many a nation building campaign, there are whole swaths of people who do not want such things and actively oppose them, and the reason for their opposition is cultural, which is informed in part by biology.

To conclude, ‘white privilege’ does not exist as a repressive conspiracy against racial minorities. ‘Privilege’ as a whole is the product of one’s ancestors having worked and sacrificed in the interest of their future descendants. They gave up their leisure and comforts so as to provide for their descendants the basis for which they could create better lives than that which they knew. To say that ‘white privilege’ exists in North America and Europe is foolish because it is expected for nations to produce systems and institutions that meet the needs of their people. If I went to China, India, or Ethiopia, would I retain my white privilege? Or is it more likely that foreign nations see to the interests of their own peoples, and that outsiders and immigrants need to conform themselves to the majority culture if they wish to succeed? Even then, success is not guaranteed. I as a foreigner am owed nothing if I choose to abandon my home and people to live abroad. If anything, I should be grateful to the host country for permitting me as a foreigner to live there, and this gratitude would be demonstrated by my attempting to conform myself to the norms of the majority and to assimilate.

If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation

Bitcoin: bc1q3q8qaff3d2zllj3yx7jtszrs349xv4av2r8mg3

Ethererum: 0x072E4EE9268AfAA436A8f4BBdAF775b28007eCD4