Category: Apologetics

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,

http://www.calvin.edu/chimes/2015/12/13/racism-white-supremacy-and-white-privilege/

 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.


The Insanity of the Notion of White Privilege

Inspired by this,

http://www.calvin.edu/chimes/2015/12/13/racism-white-supremacy-and-white-privilege/

White people who complain about “White Privilege” should speak less and just go about leading by example in stripping themselves of their “White Privilege.” If they are a Minister they should resign from their pulpit so a minority member can have the pulpit. If they are a Student at a University they should quit so a minority member can have their slot. If they are a Politician they should cease from politics and get behind a minority candidate somewhere. If they are a College Professor, they should quit complaining about White Privilege and just resign so a minority member can have their post. If they are wealthy then let them give all their wealth away to minorities so that those white people can be done with their privilege.

The dirty little secret about White people who complain about white privilege is that they desire to retain their so called white privilege while seeking to create a climate where there occurs a stripping of other white people of their position, rank, or ability that those other white people have worked very hard to achieve. White liberals complaining about White privilege are all about seeking to get other white people to give up their position while they retain their positions that allow them to go on a screed about white privilege. As such, white people complaining of white Privilege are Hypocrites on human growth hormones because they complain about white privilege all the while refusing to give up their own status, place or position.

Really, the logical conclusion of White guilt is for Whites to commit suicide. That is the only sure way that white privilege can be ended once and for all.

White people of position, status, or rank complaining about white privilege are merely virtue signaling. They are in essence saying, “See how noble and virtuous I am. See, how much I suffer from white guilt. Like me. Like me. Like me.” They are telling the world how noble they are because they stand for this hip and irrational social construct, while at the same time casting evil standing on those who dare disagree with them.

We should speak to the White non Christian guilt angle because this is all very religious.  Here we find White Liberals creating false sins (White Privilege) that create false guilt. An answer must be found to these White sins and White guilt. What will the answer be? Well, the answer is to try and cast their White guilt and White sins on those who dare disagree. As such Biblical Christians who disagree with this notion of fake White guilt for fake White sins become the means by which atonement is achieved. Atonement is achieved and their liberal White guilt is paid for and relieved as they sacrifice biblical Christians on the Cross of public opinion.  They cover their own sins and relieve their own guilt by making a sacrificial lamb out of their Christian and White brothers and sisters who dare disagree with them. Behold, the lamb of the White guilters who taketh away the fake sins of  the white liberal. Those White people who disagree with the White guilters are being pierced for the transgressions of liberal Whites while being crushed for the iniquities of liberal Whites. By the stripes laid upon those who mock White guilters the White guilters are healed. At least that is the way it is in their false White guilt Gospel.

And keep in mind that what occurs should they get their way is the replacement of what they call white privilege with minority privilege. If the Reconstruction eras (1865 – 1877) taught us anything it taught us that the end of white privilege means the rise of non white privilege.

White people who complain about White privilege suggest that if one doesn’t agree with them that those who disagree are functional White supremacists. I would contend that the proof that White supremacy is a myth is found in white people complaining about white privilege. After all, how much intelligence can exist in someone who would disinherit their children and people in order assuage their pretend guilt about a completely fabricated social construct  so that they can  feel good about themselves?

White supremacy? Only if one considers  torpidity quotient to be a sign of supremacy.

Another point to demonstrate the ridiculousness of all this is to ask how it is that a son or daughter of a White Appalachia coal miner or a son or daughter of a White Indiana small dairy farmer has more privilege than the sons or daughter of Jesse Jackson, or Niki Haley, or  Colin Powell, or Barack Obama or  Bobby Jindal,  or Bill Richardson, or Maxine Waters or Clarence Thomas, etc. The idea that all Whites are privileged  over all minorities is simply ludicrous.

Yet, it won’t matter how utterly asinine such thinking can  be easily demonstrated to be. All that matters is that the Marxist Emperor has this idea and that all the White liberal court is ooohing and ahhhing over how brilliant he is.  Never mind that his ideas are naked and can be exposed as such, by a three year old, because the Emperor keeps on serving up the punch and the court just keeps on drinking.

Notre Dame Philosophy Professor Reflects the Zeitgeist

The love of a mother is no more or less important than the love of a father. We all know this. But then, in general, mothers should be under no greater burden than fathers to abandon their callings for the sake of their children. The asymmetry in our responses to working mothers and fathers, then, suggests that other factors are in play. In an evangelical protestant context, the context I have in view here, there is good reason to suspect that these other factors include a tendency to devalue the gifts and contributions of women particularly in positions of teaching and leadership

Michael Rea
Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

The above is culled from here,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rea/mothers-in-ministry_b_8760590.html

Why, instead of the conclusion that Dr. Rea draws in his last sentence above, don’t we conclude that the reason Evangelical Protestants don’t want women in social order leadership is,

1.) The Scriptures forbid it.

2.) We so value women and their role in hearth and home that we don’t want to treat them like roses used as kindling to start a fire by turning them into ecclesiastical versions of “Rosie the Riverter?”

It is a fallacy to think that all because women are not treated like men therefore women are devalued in their gifts and contributions.

3.) We understand and affirm that men and women were not created to be interchangeable cogs as if both sexes were created to do the same thing.

Overall I would say it is Dr. Rea, and people like him, who are devaluing the gifts and contributions of women. It is people like Dr. Rea who are taking from children their Mothers who are to be the leaders and teachers of the most impressionable in our social order.

As a young lady, stay at home Mom, friend of mind said, in discussion about this article,

“With ‘men’ like Dr. Rea, who needs women to run for church office? We already have them!”

(And believe me when I tell you that this young lady, I’m quoting above, could run circles around any three Woman Pastors combined, you might want to name, in terms of giftedness in leadership and teaching.)

Finally, note the methodological way that the Left works here. Suggesting that men and women are interchangeable is put into such noble and glowing words and sentiments, while at the same time, the idea that women are distinct from men is made to look cruel and mean. The appeal to emotion is made with the consequence that the rational is bypassed. This is a common methodological tool of the unholy Left.

Walsh on the Deconstruction of the Family

The attack on normative heterosexuality — led by male homosexuals and lesbians, and invariably disguised as a movement for ‘rights,’ piggybacking on the civil rights movement of the 1960’s — is fundamental to the success of Critical Theory, which went straight at the hardest target (and yet, in  many ways, the softest) first. The reason was simple: If a wedge could be a driven between men and women, if the nuclear family could be cracked, if women could be convinced to fear and hate men, to see them as unnecessary for their happiness or survival — if men could be made biologically redundant — then that political party that had adopted  Critical Theory could make single women one of their strongest voting blocs.

And so Eve was offered the apple: In exchange for rejecting a ‘traditional’ sex role of supposed subservience and dependency (slavery, really), she would become more like a man in her sexual appetites and practices (this was so called ‘freedom’), and she would be liberated from the burdens of motherhood via widespread contraception, abortion on demand, and the erasure of the ‘stigma’ of single motherhood (should it come to that) or spinsterhood. Backed by the force of government’s fist, she would compete with men for jobs, high salaries, and social status, all the while retaining all her rights of womanhood. the only thing she had to do was help destroy the social order.

The results has been entirely predictable: masculinized women, feminized men, falling rates of childbirth in the Western world, and the creation of a technocratic political class that can type but do little real work in the traditional sense. Co-educational college campuses have quickly mutated from sexually segregated living quarters to co-ed dorms to the ‘hook up culture’ depicted by novelist Tom Wolfe in I am Charlotte Simmons to a newly puritanical and explicitly anti-male ‘rape culture’ hysteria, in which sexual commissars promulgate step-by-step rules for sexual encounters and often dispense completely with due process when adjudicating complaints from female students.

Crucially, at every step of the way, ‘change,’ from the old norms was being offered as ‘improvement’ or ‘liberation’ — more fulfillment, more pleasure, more experience. And yet, with each step, things got worse — for women. Eve’s bite of the apple sent humanity forth from the Garden, sadder but wiser. Today’s transgressive Western woman is merely sadder and often ends her life completely alone, a truly satanic outcome. G. K. Chesterton’s parable of the fence comes to mind, in the ‘The Drift from Domesticity,’ in The Thing (1929):

In the manner of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which probably will be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law, let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this, let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

A splendid example of Chesterton’s Fence was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, championed by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will non inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area,” said the Massachusetts Senator. “In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think … The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Half a century on, those predictions have proved dramatically wrong: the question is whether Kennedy and his fellow leftists knew quite well at the time that there forecasts were bogus — although (as someone or other famously said) what difference, at this point, does it make?

In the same way, much of contemporary, ‘reform’ is marked by impatience, ridicule, and haste, cloaked in ‘compassion,’ or bureaucratic ‘comprehensivity,’ disguised as ‘rights’ prised out of the Constitution with a crowbar and an ice pick, and delivered with a cocksure snort of derision against any who would demur.

Michael Walsh
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace; The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West — pg. 88 – 89

Marinov’s Malapropism

Considering the mass shooting by a Muslim gun owner:  The liberals say that we can’t blame all Muslims, but we surely can blame all gun-owners – & ban guns. The conservatives say that we can’t blame all gun-owners but we surely can blame all Muslims – & ban all refugees.
Each side says the other side is schizophrenic & hypocritical. And each side wants to give more power to the Federal government to deal collectively with a group for the crimes of one person.

While I mourn the loss of life, I can’t but notice God’s irony to both camps.

~Bojidar Marinov

1.) All because liberals say things doesn’t mean that liberals are making sense. To not note that is more than unfortunate.

2.) How does it follow that gun owners are to blame when terrorists use guns to murder people?

3.) The shootings happened in a “gun free zone,” where guns were banned. How did that ban work?

4.) Actually the liberal says we can’t blame any Muslims since to blame any Muslim would be “racist.”

5.) I see a great deal of torpid in this camp but I see no irony in the least.

6.) Where are the Conservatives that say we can blame all Muslims? What the Conservative actually says is that we have a Muslim problem that warrants us to conclude that Islam is not a faith system that can co-exist within Western civilization. How many shootings have to occur before Mr. Marinov gives up on his open borders fantasy?

7.)  Of course we can’t blame all gun owners. How can a gun owner in Longtown, SC be blamed for a Muslim nutcase killing 14 people who were occupying a gun free zone?

8.) The fact that Liberals insist that conservatives are  shizophrenic & hypocritical doesn’t mean they are schizophrenic & hypocritical.

9.) Conservatives do not desire to give more power to the Federal Government. Mr. Marinov seems to forget that one of the responsibilities of the Federal Government is “to provide for the common defense.” Protecting the citizenry for enemies, foreign and domestic is part of the oath that many Federal officials take. Mr. Marinov is just in error on this matter and his error is in service of his errant desire for open borders.

10.) The only irony in any of this is Mr. Marinov’s ability to find irony where it does not exist.