WHITE PRIVILEGE, PART I

Anti-White Meme
Both Christians and non-Christians of a liberal persuasion support the idea that those of European descent should give up their “white privilege.” Few, however, have seriously considered the practical consequences of what this would mean.

As an example, Christians should consider a good and wise king who rules over his people as a benevolent absolute monarch. After carefully considering the complaints of the kingdom’s social justice warriors, the king concludes that he enjoys too much privilege over his people and decides to step down as their ruler.

Five different scenarios might unfold in the aftermath of the king’s resignation:

First, a new mediocre king might come to power. He cannot rule as well as the old king. Worse, he might be a vicious immoral tyrant who terrorizes the people. This scenario is likely.

Second, a democracy is established in which the mob is incapable of ruling as efficiently as the good and wise king. The mob leads the country into unwise wars of passion that bring invasion and famine. Eventually, the kingdom is torn by warring interest groups and the country is eventually controlled by greedy moneyed interests who buy off politicians. This scenario has a moderate likelihood depending on the kingdom’s social landscape.

Third, complete anarchy. The country devolves into a mini-Africa. This scenario is probably less likely than the first two, but still worth considering.

Fourth, a foreign power dominates the kingdom from the outside. It doesn’t have an ethnic, linguistic, religious, or cultural connection to the kingdom’s people. Moderately likely.

Fifth, another virtuous government comes to power to replace the king. It rules as well or better than the old king did. This scenario is unlikely considering historical precedent.

While the king’s resignation of his privilege may have been moral and humble, there is a high chance it will have an evil effect on the people of his kingdom. No matter what might eventually happen, the king still made a selfish decision to protect his own virtue while gambling with the future of his people.

Compare this story to the question of white privilege. If those of European descent (especially Christians) choose to voluntarily abandon their privilege as the world’s ruling ethnic group, they must ask themselves who will rule in their place?  There are several possibilities:

First, atheistic communist China.

Second, confident Islamic extremists.

Third, a mediocre but unstable coalition of more or less antagonistic interest groups (ethnic, moneyed, religious, etc.).

Fourth, a violent tinder box of diverse and ruthless mob governments (like those in other Third World countries).

Fifth, a yet unknown race of competent Christians.

When one considers the situation carefully, there is no better group to rule the world than European Christians. The privilege this group possesses is not a bad thing when compared to the relative possibility of anarchy, Islamic sharia, or godless bureaucracy. Ethnic Europeans might feel moral for having resigned their privilege, but doing so would represent a selfishly irresponsible decision that would negatively impact the rest of the world.

There is, however, another looming question. If another virtuous ethnic group were to replace Euroethnics as the world’s privileged rulers, would this group inherit privilege and immediately become immoral? To claim that the acceptance of one’s privilege is “racist” is to suggest that no one can ever possess authority.

Comments