The Arrogance of All Political Theories

I am always amazed, confused and irritated whenever my friends have opinions on politics. I have my own opinions, of course. Mine, however, are shrouded behind a veil of pronounced ignorance and only professed because of arrogance. And that arrogance, to me, is the key to any political theory, for whenever I try to debate with my friends about any topic, from abortion to gun control to tax reform to US foreign policy, if the debate is allowed to continue for the prolonged periods of time they normally occupy, we will inevitably end up in the realms of philosophy, or sociology, or evolutionary biology, or psychology, and so on. Essentially, any debate about politics, even on a micro level, in order to be examined comprehensively involves an amount of implicit assumptions encompassing all of the fields listed above and more that, if examined fully and risen to the surface, would themselves occupy an entire philosophical encyclopedia. Therein lies the source of my frustration. For to know anything at all is to know everything, and if I may be entitled to such a truth claim it would be that there is nobody who knows everything.

This is not a relativistic claim. I am here not denying the existence of an objective truth which is applicable to local scenarios in the real world. I am, however, skeptical of our ability to access, comprehend, and correctly disseminate that truth, precisely because the truth of anything is interdependent on a series of other truths that can stretch out like an ocean of incomprehension. To follow this metaphor, if one wishes to examine the location of any boat traversing any sea then they cannot look exclusively at the boat but also the sea. Thus, whenever I approach any political or, more broadly, intellectual discussion at all I feel as if I am alone on a boat with no compass in a sea which stretches beyond my comprehension in all directions with no landmarks, and I possess no idea how I got in the sea or the boat in the first place.

If that is how I feel, then, why do I ever deign to talk about such ideas? Therein lies the necessity of ideology, as I hope will soon become clear. I say this, because, despite being lost at sea, I have some vague semblance of where I am supposed to go. When I dwell on the subject for too long I become paralyzed by the vast nature of the question lying before me, but I nonetheless have an instinct guiding me.

My thesis is thus; this vague instinct, in the context of politics, takes the form of a variety of implicit assumptions which provide the conceptual framework through which I view any given political issue.

This, to me, is what anyone who dares to consider themselves competent enough to wade into and offer their opinion on any political subject must first consider. My assumption here, which is of course unjustly unexplored much like all of the other dialectical considerations I intend to explore in this paper, is that guiding all intellectual discourse is something not at all intellectual. This guiding force can be called ideology.

Are humans rational? This is one of those lingering questions which, before anyone even attempts to explore any remotely political topic, must explore themselves and come to some (sufficiently) satisfactory answer. For, before we even consider the question itself, ponder for a moment how consequential the answer to this question will be on any comprehensive political theory? How far can ‘human reason’ take us in understanding any political question, insofar as we are even reasonable? Let us imagine the implications.

The difference between a political apparatus which presumes people as reasonable and one which does not is so large as to make any apparatus on either side of the question be necessarily incompatible with one on the other. This is evidenced by the significance of the famous ‘state of nature’ arguments which find their home primarily in liberalism. The difference between a world designed upon the assumption that people in the state of nature are Hobbesian versus Lockean is demonstrably significant. If you were tasked with babysitting for an evening, the difference between assuming people are reasonable versus not is the difference between babysitting infants versus teenagers. The difference has a remarkable influence upon the way you approach the task.

What does reason have to do with well being? Is a reasonable behaviour one which mitigates harm? Does reason concern itself with human flourishing? There again is another significant divorce; if reason is that which enables human flourishing (even the concept of human flourishing requires significant examination) then that is distinct from a conceptualization of reason which says that reason necessarily concerns itself with human reasoning. The difference between reason enabling versus necessarily causing is another difference which contains within it different prescriptions for reasonable human behaviour, for if reason is merely a tool it can obviously be used in a variety of ways, some of which may might enable the opposite of human flourishing, as opposed to imagining reason not as a tool but as a force which necessarily guides humans in a specific direction.

Thus, human reason is a question which itself begins to crumble when one even examines it. A question which seems simple but important becomes a buffet of questions which are equally as important. What is reason? Is it an escape from the passions? Are the passions therefore unreasonable,,such as the passion for food or sex? Or is reason the ability to parse and delegate the passions? Is that delegation conducted by an actor consciously or is it done automatically by the processes in the brain? Under what conditions are humans reasonable? What situations are and are not conducive to reason? Why those conditions and not others? How many of those situations are beyond human control? Are there degrees of reasonableness, that differ among people, or cultures? Why would someone be innately more reasonable than another, if there even are innate capacities for reason? Were our ancestors in Roman Republic reasonable? Does reason exist in the animal kingdom or is it exclusive to humans? If exclusive to humans, why would nature produce something capable of escaping nature? And more fundamentally, is reason even a product of nature or of something else? Did we always have reason, or did we learn it? Can it be taught, much like a skill? Does training reason result in the suppression of the passions? If so, is that tenable? Is satisfying reason as gratifying as satisfying the passions? How many times a day do we exercise reason? What is reason, other than information processing? Is it just weighing the pros and cons of some premise? How is reason related to creativity? Can unreasonable people be creative? Are there unreasonable people? What do we do about them? Thus, the question of reason is a genesis of what seems like an unreasonable amount of sub-questions.

Does one have to ponder all of these questions? It seems to me that would take an immense amount of time to weigh all of the options to all of the questions, and arrange your answers (if this is possible) in a manner that is coherent or at least not overly contradictory. Moreover, if one embarks on such an endeavour, ought they be expected to read all that the great thinkers of the past have offered to the discussion? Or ought they be left to meditate on such topics themselves, un aided by the intellectual giants who came before them. And what does all of this have to do with politics?

The point I am feebly attempting to make is, roughly, this. Any political theory, be about war or politics or anything in between, will contain in it an implicit answer to the question ‘are humans reasonable’ which itself contains the barrage of questions I just laid out. Any theory which ignores this question is standing upon nothing. But no theory ignores this question because they all, consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, endorse something which resembles an answer to the question, for any theory which strives to offer a coherent and consistent interpretative apparatus necessarily depends upon a similar coherence and consistency with regards to this aspect of humans which is determinate of the totality of their behaviour.

More frighteningly, the answer to the question ‘are humans reasonable’ might not entertain an either/or answer. It might be vague, inconsistent, and change over the course of a minute or a Millenia. (and, as shown, the answer depends upon how one defines reason and its relationship to humans, which is itself a contestable subject) At least if the answer is yes, then, if you are going to develop a theory which rests upon that answer, then you are thereby justified in eliminating all of the theories which answer the question in the negative. That is refreshing and reassuring. In that scenario, the sea becomes smaller and a vague landmass appears in the distance. But if the answer to the question of human reason is vague, the possibilities upon which to build a political theory remain, frustratingly, akin to a sea which stretches in all directions with no land marks in sight.

And this is but one example of a question which determines a political theory. If it’s a question that is at present and will remain unanswered, does that mean that we are unable to develop a comprehensive political theory?

And by now surely it is time to turn to the concept of political theory itself. By that we can mean a broad structure of interpretation which provides some convincing causal explanation of the state of things.

Lets examine the concept of political theory in an example. Why did the Soviet Union fail? Firstly, did it fail? What does it mean to fail, and in comparison to who? Did the Soviets fail compare to Nicaragua, or to the Russian Empire which preceded the Soviets? If we assume that saying the system failed is justifiable, why then did it fail? A political theory would provide some mildly comprehensive and broad explanation of that phenomenon. It failed because of x,y,z. In this you begin to notice that many assumptions begin to creep up if you ponder it. Some claim the Soviets failed because it misjudged humans nature as being to cooperative and not as competitive?

So a political theory is, to me, dependent upon a number of assumptions about a number of things which we can divide into a number of categories. Here are but a few of these fundamental assumptions.

Are humans self interested? Do we strive for power, or benevolence? What is the balance between short and long term thinking? Is there a human nature, and if so, how determinate is it of human behaviour (how did it develop, why in this particular manner, are we even capable of answering such questions sufficiently)? How does nature interact with nurture; is one more determinate than the other? Is war eternal or are we capable of ending it? What is the source of inequality, and what forces perpetuate it and what forces fight against it? What is human flourishing and how is it achieved? Are humans greedy or cooperative or both and how can we, if we can, construct a society which pulls on one and not the other? Why are humans obsessed with death, pain, and torture? Are people self interested or self destructive? Is war a eternal phenomena or capable of going extinct amongst us?

Thus, a political theory vaguely provides an answer to the question ‘why are things the way they are’. That is a question which is, if one considers all of these contestable variables, unanswerable, and therefore the insufficiency of political theories is inevitable. And just to be clear, by insufficient I mean ‘objective’, in the sense that the truth exists outside of humanity.

Moreover, these questions are frustratingly interdependent. The answer to any one of them contains within it all of the others. Attempting to answer the capacity of human reason is a road with many forks; is it learned or innate or both, is it concerned with human flourishing, are some people more reasonable than others? Thus, the assumptions which serve as the foundation for any political theory are akin to a large family that has spread itself over the globe and rarely talk to each other; to assemble each individual member together requires assurances that x or y is coming to the reunion, and to miss any member is to miss them all. Are humans more cooperative or selfish; whichever one they are must consider their ability to reason between one or another.

This analogy is itself productive because, much like a large and distant family, the answers to these questions may not present themselves coherently, ultimately dooming the existence of a political theory which is capable of uniting the assumptions coherently. Assuming that we are able to ‘objectively’ discern the truth about any of these human characteristics which have been pondered and debated and left unanswered for millennia, who is to say that the truths revealed by such questions are conducive to the manner in which we try to develop them? In our endless will to truth we desire a framework of coherent truths which can reveal to us the machinations of the world. That is what a political theory is. But the truths which inform these theories may not play along with our game.

There are even more problems. For any question such as these it is not sufficient to just know the answer, but we must know why. Take reason; if I rubbed a lamp and out came a magical genie I might ask it “are humans reasonable”? Let’s assume the genie said that humans are reasonable. But why humans are reasonable is itself a question with important affects upon the prescriptions of a political theory. A political theory which assumes that humans are reasonable because God the almighty bestowed upon this gift will include a variety of other conclusions not present in a theory which assumes that reason is the result of evolution. Consider the difference between the various forms of humanism (a philosophical theory which emphasizes human reason) throughout history to acquire a vaguely more nuanced view on the relevance of why human reason exists upon any world view.

Is it true that one framework can be more true than another? Absolutely. What I am not assuming here is that there are no universal truths. The existence of universal truths means that one theory can be closer to those truths than another, hence making it more true. But I am, perhaps in a manner bordering on paranoia, excessively skeptical of our ability to access those truths. As presented, accessing the truth means overcoming the problems of why this truth and not that truth, wading through all of the variables contained within a single question, and hoping that truth A is compatible with truth B. Moreover, many of these questions are already subject to vehemently defended truth claims. Regarding human reason, psychology has been studying and discovering and rediscovering the truth for decades, and there is very little in terms of a consensus upon the subject. Not that long ago, John Haidt and the social intuitionists overthrew the entire field and the concept of human reason. I am not a psychologist, and I am not familiar with the literature. When it comes to human reason, then, I am not the authority making the conclusion but I am appealing to the conclusions of other authorities who are berated and criticized within their own fields of expertise. When I read the psychological literature on human reason and side with one authority on another, assuming that I have read sufficiently on the topic to approach what resembles a sufficient body of knowledge to come to an informed decision, I am fundamentally making an assumption. The same follows for all of the other questions which necessitate a political theory.

An ideology is defined as a “system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic of political theory and policy”. What I have been arguing, essentially, is that we are all therefore ideological. Ideology is not something exclusive to political radicals or pundits. Ideology refers to the fact that, at the base of any political theory, lie a series of assumptions which may or may not be explored, coherent, or correct. But they are there nonetheless. Is it possible to develop a political theory without a sufficient answer to any of these questions? By definition that is impossible, as a political theory is a structure which exists to explain past behaviour and make predictions about future behaviour. Therefore, it necessarily contains implicit within it a series of other more fundamental questions which do the exact same thing. Moreover, people don’t see events in isolation. They see them as causally connected, and that connection, however broad or meagre, constitutes a political theory. And that theory, however broad or meagre, is inhabited by ideology.

As you may have noticed, this exploration is itself subject to a fundamental and determinate assumption, namely, that these fundamental truths are determinate (and also unanswerable). Much like Descartes, doesn’t it seem like I am assuming that there are some truths which lie near the ‘foundation’ because they influence and are determinate of a handful of other truths? What if that premise itself is wrong? At least with this assumption I lie with good company, as to deny the existence of universal truths is to call the entire validity of science into question, with its desire for universal truths from which conclusions can be drawn. Are we not just doing to the same thing with politics? Creating or discovering some deep, universal truths which collectively encompass everything? Therefore, is the method of developing political theory not identical to that of philosophy and even science? If so, then why is political theory and philosophy so unconvincing? Why am I asking so many questions? If one question does not arise even more then I am not sure it is a question.

So where does this leave us? Does it not seem like I am suggesting that every political theory be discarded? If every theory is dependent upon a series of currently unanswerable and contestable and inarticulable questions where does that leave the validity of political theories? All I am hoping to do is exonerate any theory of a desire to be objective. Claims of objectivity are what need to be left behind. Though many theorists and pundits who regurgitate the theories of theorists profess open mindedness they invariably present their theories as fact. It is this form of presentation which we must rebel against.

How Being White Became The New Original Sin

Most white people have nothing good to say about the social justice movement.

SJW’s (self proclaimed warriors of social justice) will attribute this to the fact that most (if not all) white people are racist and intrinsically opposed to the notion of equality. While there is undoubtedly a significant amount of racism lurking in America’s basement, and though it may be difficult for an SJW to imagine, people have reasons to disagree with their ideology that extend beyond xenophobia and bigotry. In general, people just don’t like hyper-sensitive political correctness; they don’t like race baiting and identity politics; outrage culture annoys them; they consider the assault on free speech rather revolting; and they then recognize that all of these despised phenomena find refuge behind the gilded halls of social justice

But there is another reason white people distance themselves from the talons of a toxic ideology, and that reason provides the bedrock for all the phenomena listed above.

Most white people have abandoned the social justice movement because it treats white people like children. And not just like any old kids, but silver spoon, Billy Madison style children, who have temper tantrums, are always used to getting whatever they want, and have no idea about how the world really works. Thus, white people find themselves in a peculiar position regarding social justice; if they reject it, a swarm of intolerant bullying can reasonably be expected; if they accept and join the movement, they’re forced to sit at the kids table whilst the grown ups do the actual talking.

This essay will seek to explain why ‘allies’ (white people who aligned themselves with social justice) are treated so poorly, and how that can explain the lack of support from white people in general. It will be informed by articles you can find here, here, and here.

What we will find is that, to SJW’s, ‘allies’ are people who know their place, hold their tongue, and stay out of the way. To explain why this is the case, a sufficient understanding of social justice thinking must be established. Examining the now infamous phrases “respect my experience” and “check your privilege” do a lot of the heavy lifting, as the underlying psychology can be accessed in a rather simple dialectic.

Social Justice Psychology

The first thing a social justice ally might discover is that their role in the movement is not heading debates, guiding discussions or even talking at all; and this is because their voice is worth less than the voices of other, more marginalized individuals. To explain this, the smouldering cauldron that is social justice must be filtered out, so that the ingredients can be examined and their respective roles in the end product identified.

Firstly, the social justice movement is one that is captivated with demolishing existing systems of oppression. Moreover, it is fuelled by the personal experiences and feelings of the oppressed. If you ever have the pleasure of attending a social justice rally, you might be bewildered by just how much time they spend talking about themselves. Prepare to be bombarded with a nearly endless parade of personal stories. To social justice types, what matters most is the feeling of alienation, of otherness, that perpetually plagues the marginalized groups of society. As long as these feelings exist, to any subjective extent, that is a gross injustice that requires maximal attention. And simply put, white people do not and can not share that experience.

This is because the social justice movement draws much of its inspiration from a school of philosophy known as postmodernism. This philosophy has much to say about seemingly everything us humans value, including aesthetics, linguistics, literature, and epistemology. But postmodernism as a social theory essentially boils everything down to power; the world is merely but a zero sum contest of various groups vying to control resources by exploiting and manipulating other groups. Suffering from a love of dualisms, they then divide the world into two categories; oppressor and oppressed. The next step is then simply identifying which groups are oppressed and by whom.

Viewing the world in this manner explains the game that is identity politics, as in order to figure out which groups are oppressed, you have to first divide the world into groups. Identity politics, at its most fundamental level, is the practice of reducing people to their societal affiliations. Basically, it says the most important part of your individual identity is the group you belong to. If you’re a black woman, the two most important parts of your identity are the black and the woman parts. If you’re gay, than being non-heterosexual is your defining characteristic.

So, once they have divided the world into groups (be it by race, ethnicity, gender, etc), they can begin identifying which groups are oppressed and which groups do the oppressing.

This process of identification creates a hierarchy of oppression, because some people belong to multiple oppressed groups. White women are oppressed, but not as much as muslim women. Transgender people are oppressed, but not as much as transgenders who are black. Identity politics helps explain why social justice orators such as Yasmin Abdel-Magied, an Australian activist, are able to attain such astonishing success so quickly. Yasmin, being a black female muslim, can claim three separate victim identities and thus has the utmost experiential authority to speak on three distinguishable issues. As a woman, she can talk about sexism; as a black, she can talk about racism; as a muslim, she can talk about islamophobia.

For those of you who have lives that extent beyond thinking about the political mindset of college students, first, I envy you, and second, I understand that all of this can be a lot of take in. Here’s a quick road map to summarize everything I just said; 1. SJW’s use postmodern thinking, which views the world through oppressor-oppressed relationships. 2. They then divide the world into groups and identify whose oppressed and who isn’t. 3. This process creates a hierarchy of oppression, in which some groups are more oppressed than others.

“Respect My Experience”

The phrases “respect my experience” and “check your privilege” are loaded with ideological doctrine, but understanding the psychology of an SJW makes them much easier to discern. Once you understand the above process, you understand why SJW’s don’t really value the voices of white people. To put it bluntly, those dastardly white folk don’t share the genuine feeling of oppression that unites America’s minorities; and even worse than that, it’s because whites are the group actually doing the oppressing!

When a black or any other minority tells you to “respect my experience”, they are telling you that you do not have the authority to talk about what it feels like to be oppressed. It doesn’t matter if you are severely impoverished, discriminated against by police, and/or abandoned by society, because you are merely a constituent of your group. And your group is not oppressed. Therefore, you do not have the right to talk about genuine oppression; especially when there are people who whose voices are much more valid, because they belong to multiple oppressed groups.

What “respect my privilege” really amounts to is an ideological tool used to override arguments from white people. If I’m a white male and we’re debating affirmative action, whatever arguments I present, whatever statistics I point out, are invalid compared to the genuine feeling of oppression experienced by a black female muslim. If I’m an ‘ally’, it amounts to whole-heartedly conceding that I have no idea what it means to be oppressed and should put the voices of those who do above my own.

“Check Your Privilege”

The other demand one must satisfy to become a social justice ally is conveniently summarized in the phrase “check your privilege”. As with “respect my experience”, there is an extensive amount of hugely consequential assumptions packed into a single phrase here, and though they run on the same algorithm, they are designed to elicit different results.

Harkoning back to postmodernism, social justice types are convinced we live in a white supremacist society. Though equality before the law is protected, there are invisible societal forces that are exclusively designed to maintain existing inequalities. Since everything is power, and that power is zero sum, whites keep themselves on top by pushing everybody else down. Moreover, whites are only able to accomplish this insofar as white people actually act out these systems.

Thus, because we are living in a white supremacist society, white people, since the day they are born, are indoctrinated with white supremacist forms of thinking. They internalize certain ideas about blacks, about women, about the economy, without even realizing it, and thus perpetuate forms of oppression.

This is what “check your privilege” really means; you have implicit beliefs that shroud your thinking and guide all of your actions in the direction of oppressing minorities. The relationship this concept shares with original sin is quite striking; there is something inherently wrong with you; no matter how hard you try to be good you will fail, and all you can do is give yourself over to the faith. The faith, in this case, being the altruistic leadership of those with experiences of oppression, who want nothing else but to usher in an egalitarian utopia.

It seems we are at a point where the shroud of nuance and incoherence that characterizes social justice thinking is beginning to fade away. “Respect my experience” says your voice isn’t worth much; “check your privilege” says it’s probably wrong anyway.

Now that these two concepts are understood, we can begin to piece together the puzzle that is the expectations placed upon a social justice ally.

Expectations of Allies

Firstly, to be an ally, you must admit that you get everything wrong. All white allies “in many ways fail at it everyday”. After all, the privileged life you have lived is founded upon the backs of all those oppress, and each time you move your foot you just dig your heel deeper into their spine.

The next step is attempting to empathize with those who are oppressed. Keep in mind, being a white person, you will never be able to have genuine empathy for those minorities you work with. But nonetheless, a good ally is one who is “constantly asking myself what it means to be white in this situation”. The social justice interpretation of ‘what it means to be white’, of course, simply amounts to ‘how is my skin colour benefiting me at this moment’. As an indoctrinated white supremacist who has become desensitized to benefiting from horrific societal oppression, you really don’t know and can’t know ‘what it means to be white’. Therefore, just assume “it’s always helping you”. After all, non-whites know what it really is like to be white better than anybody, right?

Thirdly, don’t try to actually to do anything yourself, since you will inevitably mess things up. Remember, everything you do and have always done in some way perpetuates systems of oppression. Since you might not recognize these systems, you should just assume that you are making things worse when you are merely trying to help. But why should I bother explaining this, when the National Association of Student Administrators (quite the title) put it so succinctly in 2006; “Some who genuinely aspire to act as social justice allies are harmful, ultimately, despite their best intentions, perpetuating the system of oppression they seek to change. Different underlying motivations of those who aspire to be allies can lead to differences in effectiveness, consistency, outcome, and sustainability.”

Since you shouldn’t do anything yourself, all you can do is enable and justify the platforms of those who have experienced oppression. It is important that whites “support the leadership of people of colour”. Be faithful to your social justice overlords; do not question them, do not criticize them, as only they have experienced oppression and only they know how to fight against it. If you feel tempted to criticize the tactics of a person of colour, remember that all you are doing is perpetuating oppression and that your privilege is obscuring your vision. Remember that “when the term ally becomes a way for privileged folk to determine how we grieve, when we should take action, what is considered worthy of national attention, and who is given agency, allies transform back into disempowering forces.” A true ally is one who realizes that they actually don’t know best.

Even if the recognition that you will make things worse by voicing your opinion fails to deter you, remember that your voice isn’t worth as much as those who belong to an oppressed group. Since you don’t have an experience of oppression, you lack the feeling of alienation upon which the social justice movement is founded. In a movement fuelled by experiences of oppression, you have little to offer. Thus, whenever you decide you think you should be heard, remember that a) you’re making things worse by talking, and b) you’re taking the platform away from someone who has a much more valid voice than you.

What white allies can do is recognize “that their place is at the margins, not at the center”. They need to “relinquish their seat at the table to make room for those with lived experiences” (postmodernism, anybody?). The only people with valid voices are the oppressed, and the only people who can be holistically opposed to systems of oppression are the oppressed. So what the whites can do is shut up and get out of the way.

Lastly, after doing all of this, “don’t expect a pat on the back” for merely “doing what you’re supposed to do”. A true ally doesn’t need gratification or validity, because a true ally recognizes that they can’t actually help the movement, but they can just try their best not to hurt it.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

The worldview of a social justice fundamentalist involves dividing the world neatly into manichean categories, and thus discovering that the whites are oppressive, tyrannical rulers who must be stopped. This is why white SJW’s are called allies; because all other white people are enemies.

One reason, among many, white people detest the social justice movement is because of phenomena such as this. The social justice movement has demeaning, racist, and paternalistic attitudes towards whites.

Most people are sensible enough to recognize that the social justice movement is not nearly as benevolent as it claims to be in the first place. But if they are tempted by the powerful anecdotal rhetoric of what it feels like to be oppressed, they are reminded that unless they kiss the feet of people of colour than they are still the enemy. The only people who can genuinely act altruistically in the name of equality are those people who belong to marginalized groups, and if white people refuse to accept that their role “is to support, not lead” than they are no better than their oppressive and insatiably greedy fellow whites.

Ironically, the social justice movement has succeeded in making white people become the ‘other’. And given their resentful attitudes towards whites, it really does seem like that was their intention all along.

Why Saying “You Can’t Be Racist To White People” Is Wrong

It’s impossible for fat people to bully skinny people.

After all, skinny people are supported and idealized by society, whilst fat people are thought of as lazy and unattractive solely based upon this one characteristic. Undeniably, skinny people have it easier in the workforce, in everyday encounters, and in interviews. Even a lifeguard is much more likely to try and save the skinny person than the fat one. And if that’s not enough, fat people have to pay higher insurance rates, once again, solely because of this characteristic.

Given this extensive sociological analysis, can we not factually state that, since fat people bear a much heavier burden than skinny people, it is impossible for a fat person to bully a skinny person?

Fortunately, there are not many people that would agree with this conclusion. Unfortunately, however, there is a staggering amount of people who agree with this conclusion if you just replaced ‘skinny’ with ‘white’ and ‘fat’ with ‘black’ or any other minority. Get rid of the lifeguard bit (though I’m sure there’s some statistic proving more blacks drown more than whites and that this is evidence of racist lifeguards) and everything else provided in the second paragraph comes straight from the mouths of social justice warriors.

Such a provocative statement, (that you can’t be racist to white people) is not only accepted in the social justice community but it seems to be one of their fundamental tenants. This is why LGBT and BLM activists can get away with saying outrageous and explicitly racist things against white people. They have redefined racism to fit their postmodern philosophy, and moulded it in such a manner as to excuse and obscure their most absurd statements.

For those unfamiliar with postmodernism, I really do envy your ignorance. It’s one hell of a philosophy to comprehend. But as it applies to politics, it basically boils everything down to different groups vying for power in a zero sum world. The social justice types, who memorize Madness and Civilization like it’s the Quran, view racism exclusively through an oppressed-oppresser lens.

To them, racism means possessing political, economic, and institutional power. To be clear, they equivocate racism with oppression; racism is merely possessing the requisite power to oppress. This is why only whites can be racist; because whites have the most power. And this general, abstract power is utilized only in malicious and malevolent manners, to the benefit of exclusively whites, and if the blacks could just get their hands on some more power they, with their big hearts and compassionate minds, would usher in a post-racial egalitarian utopia. This isn’t hyperbole, but the implicit assumption made by SJW’s.

And I’m not merely plucking this assumption out of a hat, but it reveals itself without shame whenever an SJW is asked to elaborate on their definition of racism. An article titled “That’s Racist Against White People” explains to us inherently bigoted whites that it’s not possible to be racist against whites because that “removes any mention of societal power, oppression and privilege” (see the postmodernism popping up?). “In reality”, certain words are “are backed by a history and current system of domination, violence, oppression, repression, dehumanization” etc.. The author felt the obligation to run through their vocabulary for a little bit longer, but you get the point.

To social justice types, all of history is packed into everything you say and do. That’s why it’s okay for a black person to call a white a cracker; because the black person is not participating in a system that perpetuates oppression of whites. When I do something comparable (guess what guys, I’m white!) I am no longer Connor Chase the indebted undergrad, but a slave owner wielding the whip of institutional power for my own sadistic pleasure against those I keep beneath my feet. When a black person calls me a cracker, they are essentially a slave rising up against my tyranny, single handily abolishing the Jim Crow laws and distributing racial equality throughout the land like candy on halloween.

That’s why the social justice types not only don’t believe in racism against whites but defend it whenever it comes up (and sometimes even call for more). Whenever you treat white people differently because of their skin, you are acting righteously and claiming some of their institutional power for your community. After all, white people are privileged beyond comprehension so a little abuse doesn’t actually mean anything, right?

But let’s put aside common sense for a moment and take this definition of racism as seriously as the SJW’s take it. When you take the time to actually follow social justice thinking through to its logical conclusions, you arrive at a thrift shop displaying all kinds of quality objections and inconsistencies. In fact, there’s so many on sale that it’s hard to choose where to start.

How about we just consider the idea that racism is determined by institutional, economic, and political power as well as contextual history. Then let’s imagine some magical social justice heaven, in which the revolution has been achieved and the insatistable demand for equality of outcome has been satisfied. Every institution and political riding is dived proportionately to the population, with 50/50 men and women, 30% blacks, 12% latinos etc… Thus, every race has an equal amount of political and institutional power. Here’s the kicker; even if every race had equal power, it would still be impossible to be racist towards whites.

This is because the social justice types demand that contextual history and the prorogation of systems of oppression are inherently linked. Historically, blacks have been enslaved by whites and been discriminated against severely for hundreds of years. In case you did’t know, this is not a reciprocal history. So this means that, even if the racial power divide is levelled out, the whites have a history of genuine racism towards blacks that they have not been atoned for. Thus, in this equality wonderland, the word nigger would still be worse than cracker.

The only way to achieve true equality is to have blacks enslave whites for a couple hundred years then fight their way back to an equal society. Only then would all the aspects of the criteria that define racism be met, as then and only then would both nigger and cracker have a history of racism attached to them.

And sometimes, it really does seem like that’s exactly what the SJW types are after. The amount of bitterness, resentment, and intolerance that boils out of social justice camps smells eerily of revenge. A “how do you like it, whitey” attitude seems to drift about in the air whenever they congregate to stop people they don’t like from speaking.

Another more obvious problem emerges when you define racism as inequality in history, politics, economy and institutional representation. If we return to our fantastical social justice land, there still exists the problem of economic disparity.

The reality is that even if racial equity could be achieved this would not bring about absolute economic equality. In a capitalist system, there will always be inequality. It’s inevitable. Some people work a little harder, some people save money better, some people know how to invest intelligently etc… And if institutions were to be divided, who’s to say they the specific constituents of that institution would be completely equal? If the profession of doctor were to be racially allocated, who’s to say that there won’t be a disproportionate amount of black pediatric neurosurgeons (as there are now)? Or who’s to say that the Japanese domination of STEM fields would flatten out? If the SJW’s think that having universities be proportionate to race is the final solution to equality, what makes them think that all races are the same? What makes them think that blacks and latinos and Koreans all have the same values and interests? What makes them think that every specific job will be absolutely equally represented?

What this reveals is the implicit communism hidden and obscured away from the spotlight. If racism can only be abolished when we have economic equality, then the wealth will have to distributed accordingly. Some authority will have to redistribute the money to make sure it’s equal, as it definitely will never be equal in capitalist system.

Maybe if you think communism is a great idea, then me pointing this little detail out won’t be such a big deal. But to those of us who have taken an economics class, a little communism goes a long way in destroying whatever it touches.

And building off the hidden communism, this definition of racism is divisive by its very nature. Defining racism in the social justice manner divides the world into manichean categories, with clearly identifiable indicators revealing your alignment with the good guys or bad guys. On this view, if a white person is a social justice ally, they are saint-like, benevolent, god-given gifts who act entirely altruistically and are willing to sacrifice their own privilege in order to make the world more just. They are all modern day Robin Hoods, stealing from the privileged and distributing it to everyone else. People like me, however, are either ignorant monsters who know not what they do, or white-supremacist demons who perpetuate slavery and other forms of oppression.

The left likes to parade how ‘tolerant’ they are other cultures and ethnicities, and they paint themselves as being accepting and reasonable. But in reality, they only tolerate you if you share their goal of abolishing traditional western society. To them, ‘diversity’ means a bunch of people who look different but think the same. As this definition shows, they believe there are good guys and bad guys, and this is determined by how much you support the system. Additionally, if you are a minority, your probably a good guy, because you’ve been horribly oppressed and anything you do acts to rebel against that injustice. If you’re white, you’re already a part of the problem, but you can do your part by shutting up and making sure other white people follow suit.

Once again, maybe you’re a fan of a black and white interpretation of the world, with identifiable good and bad guys. But the world is a complicated place, and any ideology which utilizes manichean categories misses a lot of the nuance that characterizes such a world.

There’s another axiom hidden in this definition you might have missed; it’s collectivist. Remember, according to social justice types, you do not act individually but are merely a puppet of the institutions which dictate everything you do. When a white is racist to a black, it is not an individual encounter, but a manifestation of all the white power and privilege attempting to keep all blacks down, a recurrence of hundreds of years of slavery, and a regurgitation of the white-supremacist ethos from which you are not yet ‘woke’. You are not an individual but merely a cog in a machine, and there is only one way you should be spinning.

One of the primary ideas of western civilization is that the individual is sacred and accountable, so it’s no surprise that the people who detest western civilization have abandoned the individual. In fact, this is another revelation pulled from the transcendent postmodernism movement. And then again, this might be another point that won’t convince you. Maybe you do think that group identity (your skin colour, gender, country of birth etc…) is the most important part about you. But I just wanted to point this out for everybody else; for all the individuals who like the idea of autonomy and freedom.

There is an undeniable problem with the collectivist mindset, however; this being that it makes it impossible to distinguish individuals. In accordance with the theme of racism, the social justice definition takes away the ability to notice who is a genuine bigot and who is just a conservative. If every racist act is a gauche propagation of institutional power, with the exact same goal of maintaining that power at the expense of everybody else, then we have a problem. Social justice types say that anyone who acts against their doctrine does this implicitly, whether they understand it or not. But what about people who do this explicitly?

What’s the difference between me, who says that this definition is silly, and Richard Spencer, who says that whites are supreme and all other races weigh us down? According to SJW’s, Spencer just says what I’m thinking subconsciously, and is merely just voicing the indoctrinated thinking that white society has pressed upon me. This is a bold and obviously ineffective political move. I would love to team up with the social justice camps and intellectually humiliate Spencer and his supporters, as his views disgust me. But the SJW’s see me and him as doing essentially the same thing; I’m just a little more careful with my words.

And lastly, I’m far from the first person to notice that this definition of racism is contextual and therefore incredibly complicated. Perhaps we could assume that the SJW’s never expected their new definition to be taken seriously, but if their logic is applied internationally its simplicity inverts on itself.

Let’s take the example of the Japanese. They hold an incredible amount of institutional and economic power, with Japan being one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Even in America, Japanese dominate the SAT’s in universities and the high paying professions in the sciences. So it seems that, proportionately, the Japanese, who account for less than 1% of the population, wield an unjust amount of power and influence. Simultaneously, however, Japanese Americans have a history of being discriminated against, from the 1800’s basically until the 1980’s. So is their history of oppression sufficient to exempt them from being racists? Or does their current power and influence make them just another oppressor?

It’s certainly impossible for Chinese people to be racist to Japanese, as these two nations have a history that consists of the Japanese abusing and exploiting the Chinese seemingly without any regard for human life in the 20th century (Rape of Nanking, anyone?).

And what do we call it when a Korean uses a racial slur against a Latino? Does the answer to this question change if it happens in America, or Brazil, or Korea?

And is it possible to be racist to whites in countries where they hold little to no power and influence? What about in Syria and Iraq, which is and has been undergoing religious cleansing of christians (who are disproportionately white)? In those countries, christians hold little to no power, and there is certainly a history of their abuse and oppression. So maybe you can be racist to whites, but you have to go to Iraq to do it?

I could go on like this much longer. All we have to do is change the location, change the people’s, change the minority, and suddenly the racism equals ability to oppress + history of oppression definition begins to crumble into sand. And just like a grain of sand by itself is insignificant, a sea of sand is enough to swallow an empire. No matter how harmless this definition may seem, there is one thing about it that is clear; it is in no way a passive or non-consequatial definition.

When you apply this definition internationally, you realize that it was constructed exclusively for the purpose of justifying the horrible things SJW’s say about the whites of the west. Most certainly, they have not even considered applying the definition in other contexts, as they are pathologically obsessed with abolishing our tyrannical, patriarchal, white supremacist society.

That’s why it’s important to understand the true danger that such ideological possession presents. Though it may be hard to see, because social justice types hide behind the emancipation of the oppressed, they are just as power hungry as the people they deem their enemies. And if the SJW’s were to acquire the power they desire, they have an excuse to act in a genocidal manner against white people.

I’m not exaggerating here either. We’ve had a century of marxist, collectivist revolutions where the oppressed overthrew their oppressors. While it sounds great, what it amounted to was the extermination of the bourgeois (for us it would be the whites) and the destruction of any capability to compete with a free market without the use of forced labor camps.

Thus, this idea of ‘you can’t be racist to white people’ is not just another brilliant liberal discovery. It’s a machiavellian power move, used to silence the fearful, condemn the opposition, and justify the horrible.

Why Murdering Women Is OK With Feminists

Perhaps you have noticed a rather odd political phenomenon, one that seems like it belongs in a Monty Python skit. Indeed, it would be funny if it wasn’t so consequential.

I am referring to the schizophrenic ideology of self declared feminists; by day, they are obsessed with nothing but tearing down the brutish patriarchy; by night, they defend and protect patriarchal systems with all their energy. The surprising alignment of feminism with practices such as Sharia Law and Sati call into question, at minimum, the true intentions of the feminist movement. In case your unfamiliar with these beliefs, Sharia Law, amongst other things, dictates that a woman’s testimony be worth half that of man’s, and Sati demands that a widow engage in self-immolation upon her late husbands funeral pyre. These seems like strange practices for people so obsessed with patriarchal forces of power to defend, doesn’t it.

In fact, we live in a time in which the Hijab is celebrated as a symbol of female empowerment. If this worldview has it’s way with our moral thinking, maybe we will live to see the burqa celebrated in a similar manner.

Though this sort of incoherence is easy to dismiss as nonsense, and though the temptation is tantalizing to do so, it is important to take this phenomenon seriously. After all, feminism is not an obscure political doctrine.

My goal here is to explain how feminists can consistently behave so inconsistently. The answer is rather simple, and it lies within the philosophical underpinnings upon which the ideology stands. Let’s put it plainly; when it comes to western civilization, feminists have no problem identifying (and often imagining) systems of oppression, no matter how subtle. But as soon as they shift their focus to any population which they consider to be oppressed, such as muslims and natives, it seems as if their eyes begin to role into the back of their heads.

This can be explained because they reject moral objectivism, they recognize that objectivism is a source of oppression, and their ultimate goal is the destruction of the tyrannical west.

1: Moral objectivism claims that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. Certain practices, beliefs, and intentions, are evil because they do not align with some universal moral code or law. It also means that intentions, however benign, are subordinate to the consequences. For example, moral objectivists can condemn the holocaust even though those carrying out believed it to be good.

But moral objectivism, historically, has amounted to mere power struggles. In the past, the goodness of an act was not determined by reasonably discussed, objective factors, but by those committing them. More powerful groups simply imparted their own values onto less powerful ones. The cultural practices of less powerful groups, no matter how benevolent, were always inferior to the practices of empires. The British were not exploiting a people when they colonized, they were spreading the superior values of the west.

In fact, history is a succession of conquering moralities. Without fail, whenever a stronger power conquered a weaker one, it had justification that always lied within the realm of morality. Those committing the deeds, whether it be slavery or pillaging, considered themselves righteous for exterminating the vile.

Thus, a leftist interpretation of history reveals that there is no such thing a objective morality, but merely whatever is deemed appropriate by the most powerful. When an SJW cries foul on man spreading and then defends the islamic right to prohibit women from driving, they can do this because they believe there is no transcendent morality.

One culture is not better than another, and it is wrong to condemn a culture of which you do not belong.

2: Another obstacle to clear moral thinking for the SJW types is the phenotype of those who typically voice support for moral objectivism. It is almost always true that, when discussing good and evil acts, it is the west who is condemning everyone else and proclaiming themselves as virtuous. This aligns nicely with the last point, as the west currently holds more power than the rest of the world.

So the left will look at history and discover that morality is just what the powerful say it is, then they will look at the world as it stands and notice that the west is the most powerful conglomerate, and they will hear the west condemning everyone else for not looking enough like them. And the social justice types, being the champions of the oppressed, have an idealogical duty to condemn such elitism.

When a white male condemns the practice of a foreign culture, he is not appealing to some universal morality but is merely exercising his cultural power.

The reason feminists defend the patriarchal practices of foreign cultures is because they find it wrong to condemn the oppressed, especially when the condemnation is coming from the mouths of the oppressors themselves. Such condemnation is not coming from a true belief in morality, but from the more innate desire to rule and excersise power.

3: Lastly, the most fundamental axiom of the modern feminist movement is not concerned with women’s rights, but the destruction and reconstruction of the west. At present, it is nothing but a tyrannical patriarchy. But with the right social control and societal setup, an egalitarian utopia can be achieved.

This is the most frightening element of the social justice movement. Above everything else, it demands revolution. We see this happening already, in the names of equality. Social justice committees, human rights tribunals, equity achievement groups, are popping at every university across the continent. These groups are united in exerting power and forcing their social justice interpretation of morality onto the campus.

Since the ideology is so obsessed with power, it is no surprise that they themselves want it more than anything else. Whenever an SJW has a moment of weakness, and their facade of benevolence fails, the truly machiavellian social policy makes a brief appearance. In such moments, you have professors celebrating the murder of a white male tourist in North Korea, you have BLM activists demanding that white people (men and women) quit their jobs, and you see bloggers who reveal to the world that cisgendered men are all mysoginst ableist racist unenlightened pigs.

Thus, modern feminist types refuse to condemn oppressed cultures because they have a goal that supersedes the well being of women. What they want more than anything, what really gets them foaming at the mouth, is the thought of tearing down the patriarchy (western civilization) and establishing an egalitarian utopia. In this pursuit, they find support wherever they can, and this support is best if it itself has a similar pursuit.

This piece was inspired by a ‘debate’ that really opened my eyes to the reality of this conclusion. In class, I made a statement which I thought would be universally acceptable; the Saudi Arabian practice of stoning female adulterers to death (and only female adulterers) is objectively wrong. To my temporary bewilderment, the people who objected to this statement were the feminists.

These are the types of people that wear t-shirts that say “we should all be feminists”. Well, perhaps feminism means something different to them. IF you call yourself a feminist and then defend the right to stone them to death, maybe anarchist would be a more appropriate title, since it seems you want nothing but to see the world burn.