28.5.16

WHITE PRIVILEGE, PART II

The concept of “white privilege” is among the moving paradigms of our modern socio-cultural discussions. Social justice warriors, their sympathizers, anti-white activists, and Cultural Marxists pour out articles, videos, and “research” from sources like the Huffington Post, Vox, and various Christian blogs like Rachel Held Evans and Sojourners magazine demanding that the global Euroethnic community abandon its privilege and socially identify with other ethnic groups whose resources and talents are less developed. To accomplish this, people of European descent must cease enjoying and building upon the social, economic, and cultural legacy of their allegedly oppressive ancestors.

Hidden beneath the idea of white privilege’ is the implicit argument that those of European descent must completely abandon their identity. To denounce their own privilege, the legacy their ancestors left them, is to denounce their history, genetics, culture, social structure, and intellectual paradigms (including theology).

Even if a total denunciation of one’s God given identity were morally desirable, the question remains whether it is actually possible. The privilege Euroethnic receive from their ancestors is a legacy developed not only by immediate inheritance but from the forces and traits found within individual ethnic groups acting themselves out over thousands of years of historical evolution. In other words, Euroethnic privilege is partially the result of genetic traits and the result of this biological inheritance on the world in which they work and act.

The idea one can denounce/forfeit one’s privilege, as these social justice warriors imagine to be related to structural racism, is as illogical as if one were told to alter one’s DNA. The privilege these activists want Euroethnics to abandon is written in their God given genetic inheritance.

Even if ethnic Europeans decided to abandon their wealth, institutions, and political power, and provided they were not then exterminated by hateful minorities, there is every reason to believe that over the course of another century all the old inequalities which Euroethnic people once benefited from would be reconstructed by the natural outgrowth of their genetically inherited abilities.

At the heart of the white privilege meme is the belief that those who possess privilege do so because of historical accidents which can be nullified with proper action. This belief presupposes white privilege is not the almost necessary result of biological differences which, given enough time, will always manifest themselves within any given socio-political-economic system. 

The genetic source of white privilege cannot be eliminated. As long as Euroethnics exist they will move upward toward a position of privilege. This upward movement can be stalled or temporarily reversed, but it is the rule rather than the exception.

Christ taught that the first will be last and the last shall be first. From a Christian perspective, demanding privilege is immoral. When James and John vied for positions of hierarchical authority in Jesus’ future kingdom, Christ informed them that only God could decide who would sit on his right and left hand.

Hierarchy is determined by God, and if Euroethnics are shown to have be granted genetic talents placing them in a different position from other ethnicities this would represent a legitimate way in which Euroethnics can be morally identified as a separate group. No one chooses their genetic inheritance, and no one can alter it (“Can anyone add a cubit to their stature?”). The “lottery of birth” created inherited inequality decided by God’s chosen distribution of privilege.

White privilege did not result from historical accidents or ruthless ethnic sins. God unequally distributed the genetic talents and intelligence necessary for Euroethnics to gain privilege. If God gave Euroethnics privilege why should we discard or destroy it? To forfeit one’s privilege is to waste God given talents.

Those who advocate the destruction of Euroethnic identity are not preaching the gospel of Christ. They are seeking to nullify God’s distribution of earthly inequalities in power, talent, legacy, and privilege.

Rabbi Joshua Stanton, writing for Huffington Post Religion, argued in a pro-mass immigration article that those living in developed white Western countries needed to check their privilege when considering mass migratory invasion into their homelands: “We cannot simply judge immigrants. We must in a sense become them for a moment, through ritual practise, so that we can more fully feel their pain and comprehend our own privilege.”

Exhortations to “become” the less privileged and empathize with them are sentimental and moralistic; but what is really being asked of the privileged person? By being told to “become” the ethnic other, the privileged are ordered to renounce their own experience and identity and dilute their self-reality into that of a group whose identity they can never truly understand. Stated another way, privileged persons are being asked to erase their identity so as to “become” the ethnic other. They must genocide the hereditary, ancestral, and cultural identity given to them by God.

A privileged ethnic group must commit suicide to “become” an unprivileged ethnic group, genocide its identity, and reinvent itself in solidarity with the “ethnic other. Of course, this is almost impossible on an ethnic scale, so whites are being told they must accomplish this genocide one person at a time on an individual level.

Even if one concedes a spiritual desirability to the concept of global human unity (this author does not), the goal will fail unless every ethnic group agrees to genocide itself for the sake of unity. Those of European descent cannot accomplish world peace by unilaterally destroying their privilege and identity. If they attempt this, their theoretically noble goal will be nullified by the psychologically healthy non-suicidal ethnic groups who will not genocide themselves for the sake of unity and peace. If Euroethnics kill themselves by voluntary racial and cultural erasure the only thing accomplished will be the ascendancy to privilege of another ethnic group who will not use their privilege for the good of humanity.

Meaningful self-sacrifice is not possible without the intervening power of God. Christ was capable of going to the cross only because God would raise him again. The final peace that will reign among men cannot result from Euroethnic self-sacrifice any more than Christians could force God to raise Christ from the grave. The much sought after age of peace can only arise when God uses divine intervention. This messianic event will not be forced by the self-righteous dismissal of our privilege.

The question of how Christians must act politically between God’s revelation in Christ and his final eschatological salvation is a question Christians have discussed for thousands of years. Should we be “immanentizing the eschaton” by killing ourselves as Jesus did (i.e. destroying our identities through the end of privilege)? Or, should Christians strive to live justly and logically in the world God has currently placed us in?

This is no easy question, and it involves the conflict between collectivism and individualism.

If Christians should move as a collective, we must work within the limitations of God’s created order and seek to incorporate scientific, sociological, and political truth into a system that works best for everyone. This will involve sacrifices to integrity like just war, inaccurate/inefficient social arrangements, tough decisions about welfare and charity, etc.

If the primary Christian perspective is the relationship between the individual and God then all thought of helping a collective worldwide organization like the church or one’s own ethnic group must be abandoned for a reckless, almost selfish, pursuit of one’s own righteousness. In this model, one’s family, race, government, and even church must be shoved aside so that the individual can sacrifice as much as possible to imitate Christ and earn eternal salvation. As Christ said, “narrow is the way, and few their be who find it,” and “whoever does not hate mother and brother… is not worthy of me.” If we want to be among the few who enter should we not to abandon all earthly ties and let the world rot while we save ourselves by ruthless perfection?

If Christians allow Christ to interpret himself, it appears he was a collectivist. He sacrificed his moral integrity by dying and taking on the world’s sins to found his spiritual kingdom. Christians are, however, left with the question of whether Christ ever corrupted himself by doing what he did. If Christ never sinned then the question remains… was he a collectivist or an individualist? Is there really any way for Christians to know the answer to this question if our example, Christ, was so powerful he never made human calculation errors?

If Christians turn to Paul and the other apostles we will see that collectivism seems to take precedence among them. In their writings. more emphasis is placed upon the church as a whole, and church discipline and political decisions are discussed from a collectivist perspective.

The command to “take up your cross” demands a different interpretation when approached from a collectivist perspective. Killing ourselves is no longer a simple task. Who should we die for? In what way? When? The individualist always dies for God alone, but the collectivist who believes God wishes for him to take up his cross for his neighbor is less certain of the situation and motivations which will allow for his righteous suicide (if we can call it that).

If Christians should look for a collectivist approach to righteousness we find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to deal with politics, and if with politics then with questions concerning groups, and if with groups then with ethnicities, and if ethnicities then with ethnic differences and the biological realities God created to separate them, and if differences then with questions of privilege, identity, and whether groups are allowed to exist and maintain themselves; especially when these group identities/legacies are based upon the distribution of inherited privilege from God.

Calls to denounce the inherited privilege of Euroethnics are calls for us to commit genocide against our people. From a Christian perspective, the European race is being asked to crucify itself for the good of other races. Before such a crucifixion is embraced, however, Euroethnics must ask ourselves whether we are really loving our neighbors by committing suicide and abandoning our privilege and identities.