Wednesday 2 March 2016

Why are Whites Always to Blame?

When reconciliation between White Australians and Aborigines stalls or fails.

When the dream of a colour blind world fails in the United States or South Africa.

When the multicultural dream fails in Europe.

You notice a recurring theme, the reason the dream has failed is white people. If only white’s had given up more, then the dream would have worked!

Because at the heart of this idea is the old Communist one of the Class Struggle, also known as Class Warfare. Class Struggle says that there are two Classes the class that has wealth and power and the class that has neither wealth nor power. The class with wealth and power is call the Oppressor Class and the class that does not is the Oppressed Class.  Further, Class Struggle says that there are no neutrals, everyone is involved in the struggle and they are a part of one class or they are a part of the other. If you are not being Oppressed then you are an Oppressor.

Class Struggle will only end when both classes have been destroyed and a classless society comes into being, what Communists call a Communist society.  The more Class Struggle, the closer society is to becoming classless. That is why Communists want strife because they believe it will bring about a perfect society quicker.

Now Communism didn’t have much to say about race or sex, it said that Class Struggle was scientific and that made it inevitable. They also believe that this applies to all people throughout time, so there was no need to have different rules for different peoples.

But over time this Communist idea made it’s way into Liberalism, into Left-Liberalism to be more precise. But it’s wasn’t an interest in social class than interested them, it was idea that classes of people existed. That this idea could be used for an idea that both Communists and Liberals were interested in, Leveling. For a classless society such as Communists want and for the Autonomous Individual that Liberals want, Leveling would be required. Leveling is the idea that there can be no poor or rich, no stupid or smart, that all people must be on the same level, they must be equal. That requires raising up those who are down and bringing down those who are up.  When people are equal then society will be perfect.

Left-Liberalism took this idea into areas that Communists had never thought of, race, sex and sexual orientation. Why are races or ethnic groups unequal? Why are some richer, why do some do better in school or in the economy. People have come up with many answers, biology, temperament, intelligence, history, opportunity, religious belief, environment, amongst many others. But if all people are equal then most of these answers just aren’t good enough. There must be some other answer and Class Struggle gave a way forward, it provided an answer for why some people get ahead and why others don’t. It gives a method of creating a perfect society and the end result of a classless society without a Communist government is a world of Autonomous Individuals.

So why are whites as a class doing so well compared to other racial or ethnic groups? It must be because they are the Oppressor class and all other races and ethnic groups are the Oppressed class. If Whites could be Leveled down, and at the same time the other races and ethnic groups could be Leveled up, then an equal society could be created.

So when something goes wrong in this little fantasy world that Liberalism has created, they blame the only people they can blame, whites. There is no one else to blame because you cannot blame the Oppressed can you?

All of this is logical if you believe that people and society are perfectible. Conservatives reject the very idea that either people or society are perfectible, we accept that people are flawed and that they always will be. The idea that one group of people are responsible for everything that goes wrong is absurd and we should always point this out.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?


  1. The old socialist belief in class struggle at least reflected something tangible, something that existed in the real world. Income inequality was a real thing. It could be measured.
    It could be measured objectively.

    Whether the socialist plan to eliminate this inequality was a good idea, or even a workable idea, is another matter but at least they were talking about something that existed in the real world.

    The trouble with the modern social justice identity politics obsession is that it's concerned with things that cannot be measured. You cannot measure white privilege. You cannot quantify racism or sexism or homophobia or any other supposed phobias. You cannot even prove that such things exist.

    That's why social justice/identity politics is so useful for certain groups. White privilege and sexism and homophobia can never disappear because as long as some Social Justice Warrior says they exist then they must exist because an SJW said so.

    In fact of course most of the oppressed groups that whine the loudest (like feminists and homosexuals) are by any objective measure among the most privileged groups in society.

    1. Social scientists have been trying to measure the concepts of "privilege" for some time. It's worthwhile to note that the Frankfurt School wasn't just a humanities movement.

      Identity politics has played its role for the kind of voter that will either vote for one party or not vote at all out of frustration. (FPTP)

      To explain this, a campus/black/gay/environment activist comes to their position out of a disagreement with the status quo. And thus they have little sympathy with a right-liberal party. The impetus for activism comes from the realization that the center-left parties aren't doing anything for their cause. Identity politics therefore convinces the activist to think that giving tribal loyalty to the left will further their cause.

      I'm skeptical that even a hard-left government with a permanent majority could ever deliver enough for them. But we aren't seeing utopian exile movements like Marcus Garvey and the back-to-the-land. That means they still think they can win.

  2. The Aborigine does not like whitey unless the former needs surgery or treatment at a hospital. Then the aborigine likes whitey.