White Privilege … A Further Consideration of Calvin College’s Professor Kuilema’s Position

A few points on “White Privilege” that I didn’t cover last week and are the result of continuing to ponder this.

Remember my scratching on this subject came about as a result of this,


 Anti-White animus isn’t even the deepest foundation of the cultural Marxist system. Those forever trumpeting “white privilege” don’t just hate whites, though they do hate whites. Even more generally, they hate goodness, and all expressions of excellence in human action, transcendental of any person’s race. Even black excellence must be quashed in the white guilter worldview. Why? Because black excellence indicates a stirring in that black person of Christian activity. It is the hatred of Christ that is the ultimate motive here. Sure, whites are a rough proxy for the Kingdom, but we can’t be equated with it. And so the real goal, which is to establish a perfectly equal hell on earth, must include the subsidiary goal of discouraging even black achievement, despite the putative slogans about affirmative action for blacks. Affirmative action aims, not to pull blacks up from slavery, but to push whites down to slavery. 

Habbakuk Mucklewrath

“White conservatives don’t want to take the lead in preserving what remains of this country’s now tenuous White, Anglo-Euro culture. To take on such a responsibility would make them even more vulnerable to the racial bullets and daggers they have been ducking for years.”

~ Elizabeth Wright, Black Conservative Author

1.) The screed of “White privilege” provides a rational for the soft bigotry of low expectations. This is the “racism” of the liberal white crowd who forever have “white privilege” on this lips. The white liberals scream about how white privilege keeps non-Caucasians down. White privilege insists that it is the white man’s rigged system that keeps non-Caucasians from thriving. Indeed, so bad is white privilege that no non-Caucasian can advance. Non-Caucasians hear this reasoning and, in agreeing with this white privilege nonsense, many cease even trying. After all, why bother trying when the game is rigged for the non-Caucasian to fail? The screaming of white privilege by white cultural Marxists provides both the excuse and the answer for low expectations.  The white liberal, “white privilege screed,” says to non-Caucasians, “We don’t expect you to make it. You have a reason why you haven’t succeeded. You are not to be faulted for not even trying, after all the white man and his system is keeping you down. This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. If there is such a thing as “racism” and “white supremacy” it is most often found in the hearts of white liberals.

2.) Now we have to deal with the fact that many non-Caucasians do succeed despite White privilege. How can that be? White privilege says that the system is only for whites. How can it be possible for any non-Caucasian to make it?

Well, the only answer to that, which I can see, is that the white privilege crowd is subtly accusing the non-Caucasians who have made it of “Uncle Tom-ism.” How else are we to explain some non-Caucasians making it in a putatively white privilege system that keeps down all non-Caucasians while most other non-Caucasians don’t succeed, unless we conclude that the non-Caucasians who have made it, despite white privilege, have succeeded by acting white? The theory of white privilege looks to be a implicit accusation of Uncle Tom-ism against all those non-Caucasians who have succeeded in this white privilege culture.

So, here you have the “white privilege” crowd, on one hand, practicing the soft bigotry of low expectations against those non-Caucasians who don’t make it while at the same time implicitly accusing the non-Caucasians who do make it as all being Uncle Toms.

3.) Please understand how this game is played as seen in a couple quotes from the Calvin College professor,

“It must be clearly stated that those who deny white privilege functionally believe in white supremacy, whether they have the courage to write it on a car or not.”

Followed later by,

“This is how the social sciences define racism, not as merely the product of prejudice, explicit or implicit bias, but a system of power based on the invention of the “white race” by people in power. By this definition, we are not all racists.”

So, in Professor Kuilema‘s world if you deny that you are advantaged by white privilege then that proves that you functionally believe in white supremacy. Meanwhile, if you affirm white privilege then by definition, you are a racist because as being white you are part of “a system of power based on the invention of the ‘white race’ by people in power.”  That’s a pretty good trick on the Professor’s part giving us a Hobson’s choice of, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Actually, there might be a third option for those who don’t want to be either functionally white supremacists or white racists and that would be the option of just killing yourself and being done with your cruelty to non-Caucasians.  Actually, while I’m pondering it, there might be even a fourth option that some might embrace. They might reason, “if you can’t avoid racism and white supremacy, then go for the gusto.”

Today, they call it “white privilege.” When I was a boy in the 60’s they called it “institutional racism.” It’s intent, as used by cultural Marxists of all colors, is to find a way to guilt Christian white people, who don’t have a lick of animus towards non-Caucasians,  into surrendering their inheritance and contribute to a slow destruction of their generations. It is premised upon the idea that the white man, and the Christian culture he built throughout the West, is uniquely guilty for the lack of advance as seen among those the white liberals number as “the noble savages.” Rosseau would be so proud of the white guilters. “White privilege” premises that no other culture is guilty of sin the way white Christians are guilty of sin. If we could just subjugate the white man, then there would be harmony and understanding, with sympathy and trust abounding.

The ironic thing here is that the white guilters think that somehow if they join in the undoing of the white man that they will somehow escape the destruction of the white man of the type that Illiana Mercer describes in her book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.” In reality white cultural Marxists (white guilters) will themselves eventually be swallowed by the very cultural Marxist culture they are seeking to create just as the old Bolshevists such as Radek, Zinoviev and Kamenev were eventually snuffed out by the very Revolution that they gloried in starting … just as Danton, and Robespierre finally kept a date with the very guillotine which they had sent so many of their fellow Frenchmen.  White guilters could be the second coming of Atticus Finch and it won’t matter. They will eventually be swallowed by the cultural revolution they are fanning to life.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *