Monday, February 27, 2017
White privilege as a Nazi concept
Hostility to people purely on the basis of their race
Hitler called himself and acted like a socialist. And those people today who preach white privilege would, I think, usually embrace gladly the claim that they are socialists. So the transmission of an idea from a socialist of the past to modern-day socialists is not surprising. But first, some background:
A large part of Hitler's success in getting Germans to follow him is that he was a sentimentalist. He was in fact sentimental about something that was a idea in the heads of many Germans of the 19th century: The idea of Ein grosses Deutschland (a greater Germany). As far back as one could go, there had been many German states, some of which were even at war with one-another at times. Religion was one reason for that but that had been ended by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. And like the leftist idealists of today who revere the European Union or the United Nations, a lot of Germans were dissatisfied with German disunity and dreamed of a new German union that would replace conflict with peace.
In the early 1870s the dream was partly realized by the creation of a Deutsches Reich: (German Empire) under the aegis of Bismarck. But that was a kleindeutsches solution that left outside the important German lands of Austria. And Hitler was an Austrian. So the dream of Germans united in one big happy family lived on in Hitler and in many Germans generally. And absolutely anathema to that dream was anything which disunited Germans.
But in the immediate period after WWI, Germany was very disunited indeed. Leftist ideas of all sorts dominated the place. And prominent in the ferment were Marxist revolutionaries. And in some parts of Germany, Communist regimes were set up. and Hitler was in the middle of it all.
While he was growing up in Linz, Hitler saw few Jews and regarded them as just another religion. In Mein Kampf he described himself as being a "cosmopolitan" in Linz. He had no racial consciousness. It was only when he moved to Vienna that he began to notice Jews. And he particularly noticed that they were very prominent among Marxist agitators. They were the extremists of a generally Leftist scene. And Hitler hated that. The Marxists were preaching class war among Germans whereas Hitler wanted Germans to be one big happy family. The old German dream of unity still lived on in an Austrian who had been left outside Bismarck's "Deutsches Reich".
So it is then that Hitler became an antisemite. He retained his romantic ideal of a happily united Grosses Deutschland so saw in the Marxist preachers of Vienna enemies of that ideal. And it was something of a godsend that the preachers concerned were mainly members of a group who had been outsiders since the Pharaohs: The Jews. So it seemed obvious to Hitler that German unity was being undermined by a group who were not really German: The enemies of the German dream were Jews. Hitler tells us all that in Mein Kampf, where he even lists the names of the Marxist Jewish agitators of Vienna in immediate postwar Vienna. He documents what he saw as Jewish perfidy. Mein Kampf is not terribly reliable as objective history but it is Hitler's best effort at describing his own emotional history. And his emotions were what drove him.
As time went on, however, Hitler noted something else. Jews were having it both ways. They were destroying Germany but also exploiting it. They were not only revolutionaries but also sat at the top of every pyramid in Germany. They were not only prominent in politics but were also the bankers, businessmen, professionals and artists. That seemed very suspicious to Hitler. How did an anti-German group of outsiders get to run everything in Germany? It had to be some sort of conspiracy. And Hitler thought he knew exactly how that conspiracy worked: Jewish clannishness: Jews stuck together and gave one another a leg-up into positions of power.
So was Hitler right? Was the prominence of Jews in Germany earned or unearned? These day, just about every commentator on the period would say that Hitler was wrong. Jews had gained their positions of prominence fair and square. They were an elite within Germany by dint of intelligence, energy and hard work. And much the same accounts for very similar Jewish prominence in the Western world to this day. The Jewish bankers of Wall St are legendary -- Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, for instance -- and even the head of Australia's largest bank is Jewish -- Ian Narev. You just can't keep Jews down for long. Ian Narev's parents were refugees but in one bound he overcame that.
So I don't think envy of Jews is reasonable any more. They have earned their prominence. Their personal characteristics are what reliably brings them to the top of every heap every time.
So I have a radical proposal: It is the same with whites generally. Whites generally have earned whatever positions of prominence and privilege that they hold. There is nothing nefarious about white privilege, any more than there is anything nefarious about Jewish eminence. Whites do better than most minorities for good reasons, for personal reasons. They have, for instance, greater self discipline, greater intelligence and a greater tendency towards deferment oif gratification. Not all whites have such attributes any more than all Jews have Jewish tendencies but, on average, whites do better.
But why does that matter? Should we not judge each person on their own individual merits, as the United Nations charter proclaims? I think we should. But the Left do not. They commit exactly the same error that Hitler did. They see people not as individuals but as a race. They are just as racist as Hitler. And, as with Hitler, there is some reality underlying their hatred. Whites really do seem privileged compared to blacks. Whites run the show while blacks are confined to just a few areas of success in sport and entertainment.
So, yes. There is white privilege but it is earned. And it is not only the product of white success but also the product of black failure. Why is it that a cop who pulls up a black motorist will be on hair-trigger alert while he will be much more relaxed if he pulls up a white? Because blacks are in general far more hostile to the police and more likely to attack the cop. And with the cop on hair-trigger alertt, the black sometimes gets shot for no good reason. One false move and the black is dead. Let me tell of my own white "privilege" in that connection:
My contact with American law enforcement is very minor but I do think my contact with the California Highway Patrol -- not exactly a much praised body of men -- is instructive. My contact occurred in the 1970s, when Jimmy Carter's reviled 55 mph speed limit still applied on American highways. I was bowling along a Los Angeles freeway in my hired Ford Pinto at about the speed I would have used in Australia -- 65 mph.
A CHP patrol detected me and pulled me over. The trooper approached me very cautiously, sticking close to the side of the Pinto and standing behind me instead of beside me. He was obviously very tense. But when he found that I was unaggressive and perfectly civil to him, he untensed rapidly. The fact that I speak with an accent that Americans usually perceive as British may also have helped. It helped explain my unawareness of California rules. We had a perfectly genial conversation at the end of which he waved me on my way without even giving me a ticket.
White privilege? Not exactly. Because something similar happened recently to me where I live in Brisbane, Australia -- a place where blacks are too few to influence policy.
I was approached by a Queensland cop when I had unwittingly made an illegal turn. And Queensland cops are not exactly fragrant. There are many bad apples among them. Even the police Commissioner was sent to jail for corruption not long ago.
So the cop was initially brusque and supercilious with me. When I showed that I was listening to him carefully by asking him to repeat something I had not understood, however, he became much more relaxed and we had a fairly genial conversation. He saw it as his duty to give me a ticket but we ended up with him wishing me a Merry Christmas and pausing other traffic to facilitate my driving off. Once again a civil and co-operative approach from me got exactly the same back.
So the important thing is how the individual and others like him will behave. There are all sorts of "privileges" in the world but individual behaviour is the key to it and talk of race entirely misses the point. Ranting about white privilege is no different than Hitler ranting about Jews. The privilege exists but it is earned. And the Leftist obsession with race is obnoxious. So my advice to the Left: Talk about privilege and try to understand it all you like -- but skip the race-hate.
More Leftist racism. "Anglo-Saxon" warriors no longer wanted in the Australian army
Politically correct nonsense is trying to make girl guides out of our soldiers
THE “diversity” revolution that Lieutenant General David Morrison inflicted on the Australian Army now threatens to diminish our war fighting capability.
Five years after the former Army chief and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick launched a social engineering experiment aimed at stamping out the male “Anglo Saxon” warrior culture, the troops are unimpressed.
The top brass might have drunk the feminist Koolaid of “Pathway to Change” and its mutant offshoots, but most of the people they command are sceptical about gender fluidity, appeasement of radical Islam, and promotion by chromosome as payback for 116 years of military patriarchy. “People just think it’s crap,” said one young officer.
To overcome such common sense thinking, diversity experts have designed a $30,000 program effectively to brainwash young leaders in the Army to become “champions of change” and stamp out the “white Anglo-Saxon male” culture they are told no longer has a place in the military.
In October, a handpicked group was taken to Sydney and Canberra for the “Junior Leaders Shaping Future Army”, and subjected to five-days of diversity indoctrination.
On day one was a three-hour session from an imam explaining his “Islamic conversion testimony” and proselytising the benefits of Islam, according to one participant who took detailed notes.
The lecture went down so badly that a planned mosque visit on the schedule the next day was cancelled without explanation.
Gender diversity expert Professor Robert Wood introduced the latest politically correct inanity, “unconscious bias”, and criticised the predominance of “Anglo-Saxon males” and the “banter culture” of the Army.
The next day Qantas diversity and inclusion manager Zak Hammer spruiked the airline’s same sex marriage campaign and LGBTI network for staff.
“Gender diversity no longer refers to male and female, because there are people within our community now who don’t identify with these,” one presenter told them.
In one exercise they were asked how they would “inclusively” manage a diversity scenario in which a digger under their command converts to Islam, requiring him to pray five times a day, eat halal food and fast at Ramadan.
“I felt like I was sitting in a North Korean indoctrination camp,” recalls one insider. “Concepts such as bias and unconscious bias have been constantly harped on to try and change the way we think and speak. The soldiers are hating it.”
“It was an extreme politically correct environment for people who are dead set into war fighting,” said another participant.
A psychologist classified the students as “champions” or “skeptics”. However, in the Army, “champ” is an insult. “It’s the worst thing you can call someone. It means you’re a d---head.”
The ADF’s diversity orthodoxy decries a military comprising mainly “males of Anglo-Australian background”, Christians and “third-generation-plus” Australian.
“Such a demographic profile is no longer desirable or sustainable”, says one of the ludicrous diversity reports which now clog the minds and in-trays of generals.
“The typical Defence hero is a hero in uniform from an Anglo-Australian background who performs acts of bravery in battle and models the values of courage and sacrifice... This type of hero is unnecessarily exclusive and works against the desire for Defence ‘to represent the community it serves’,” writes education academic Dr Elizabeth Thomson in her 2014 report: “Battling with words”.
“Casual conversation in Defence is dominated by the kind of talk characteristic of the Aussie bloke... “Humour, banter, practical jokes and nicknaming are language practices (which) marginalise and exclude people (and must be) controlled”
If all this sounds frighteningly Orwellian, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Defence Force Recruiting is where crackpot theory first meets reality and Army chief Lt Gen Angus Campbell is frustrated with the slow progress to achieve his goal of doubling the proportion of women from 12 to 25 per cent.
In a speech to recruitment officers last August he criticised an unnamed dissident who had informed Defence Force Chief Mark Binskin’s “Gender Adviser”, Julie McKay, that he would resist diversity targets because he “needed to protect the Army from Canberra”.
“You need to understand that I will have no humour if my directions are ignored,” Campbell told the recruiters. “The number one priority I have with respect to recruitment is increasing our diversity.”
Since Campbell’s rocket, Defence Force Recruiting has pulled out all stops to entice women into the Army. One whistleblower says they run “female only information sessions, female only fitness assessments, female only job assessment days, have a dedicated female Specialist Recruitment Team... (and) free fitness training.”
Female recruits can ask to be posted with friends and to a location of their choice, and are offered reduced periods of service — one year while men have to serve at least four.
“Defence Force Recruiting has stopped males joining particular jobs which are open only to females,” he says. “Infantry, artillery, key jobs. Where does it stop?”
There is a new program at Kapooka for female recruits too out of shape to pass basic fitness requirements of eight push ups, 45 sit ups, and 7.5 on the Beep test. The Army Pre-Conditioning Program for unfit women offers seven weeks of intensive physical training, yet by the end almost half still flunk the entry test.
Women comprise 12 per cent of the Army, yet Broderick’s goal is 35 per cent of senior positions to be filled by women, so females have a three times better chance of promotion.
Army hasn’t met recruitment goals for ten years, and the exodus of men disillusioned about their promotion prospects won’t help.
At a time when our Army is being called on to step up the war against Islamic State, the deleterious effect of social engineering is clear. As one former soldier puts it: “They’re messing with our war-fighting DNA”
As the Trump administration gets ready to tackle illegal immigration, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission noted the impact on the black community that he believes is too often ignored
“A sizable number of black men don’t have access to entry-level jobs,” Peter Kirsanow says.
“Black males are more likely to experience competition from illegal immigrants,” Commissioner Peter Kirsanow told The Daily Signal.
Kirsanow, an attorney in Cleveland and former member of the National Labor Relations Board, said illegal immigration is both a short-term and long-term problem for young black males.
“What happens is you eliminate the rungs on the ladder because a sizable number of black men don’t have access to entry-level jobs,” Kirsanow said. “It is not just the competition and the unemployment of blacks. It also depresses the wage levels.”
A U.S. Civil Rights Commission study in 2010 determined immigration had a disproportionate impact on black Americans, but the study didn’t distinguish illegal immigration from legal. The findings came through various field hearings with experts.
“About six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and black men are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market, where they are more likely to be in labor competition with immigrants,” the commission report says.
The report continues:
Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men. Expert economic opinions concerning the negative effects range from modest to significant. Those panelists that found modest effects overall nonetheless found significant effects in industry sectors such as meatpacking and construction.
A 2012 Census Bureau report found more than half of American-born blacks did not continue their education beyond high school, while the rate was even higher for foreign-born Hispanics.
Kirsanow noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the labor force participation rate for people with less than a high school diploma is 46 percent, which he argues means there is no shortage of low-skilled workers in the United States. The labor force participation rate for those with a college degree is 73.8 percent.
The NAACP, the nation’s leading black civil rights group, did not respond to The Daily Signal for this story. However, the organization has supported immigration reform that would provide legal status to illegal immigrants.
Moreover, an NAACP action alert cited research that increased immigration was actually helpful to the black community. After the Senate passed a 2013 amnesty bill, the group’s statement said:
Comprehensive immigration reform must focus on the basic American principles of preserving family unity, opposing wasteful spending, and protecting and promoting human and civil rights, human dignity, and fairness. It must also be very aware of the economic impact any new policies will have on the American people: that is why the NAACP was pleased to learn of studies which have found that more often than not, Latino immigrants and African-Americans fill complementary roles in the labor market. The study, by the Immigration Policy Center released in June of this year concludes that in metropolitan statistical areas, the increase of the Latino immigrant experience significantly raises wages, lowers unemployment, and elevates job creation for African-Americans.
The Immigration Policy Center is a research arm of the American Immigration Council, an immigrants’ rights advocacy group.
The Congressional Black Caucus also did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal. However, the group of African-American House members, all Democrats, has previously supported comprehensive immigration reform proposals, stating on its website:
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus unanimously support Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation that provides a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants currently living in America and particularly for the more than 3 million immigrants of African descent.
Kirsanow contends that certain politicians and advocacy groups are more concerned with advancing the Democratic Party.
“Some people are putting party preference over the needs of their constituents,” he said. “The [Congressional Black Caucus] styles themselves as protecting and enhancing the interest of black Americans. The problem is that black workers are being ignored. So, there is another agenda at work.”
Roe v. Wade Plaintiff Dies of Broken Heart
Over the years, our family has had the opportunity to host many interesting guests in our home. In 1995, Norma McCorvey (Roe v. Wade) and Sandra Cano (Doe v. Bolton) spent a Sunday afternoon with us.
That year, my wife and I were engaged in the reconstruction of a former abortion clinic into a national memorial site for aborted children — a place where mothers and fathers of those children could tangibly memorialize the loss of their child. Our mission was not a political crusade but motivated out of a desire to provide the parents of aborted children, who in retrospect more fully understood the loss of life involved in their choice, a place to memorialize and grieve that loss.
Norma McCorvey was the anonymous plaintiff “Jane Roe” in a case filed in 1970, and ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, opening the door for abortion in every state. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who wrote the opinion for the court, noted, “The word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Sandra Cano was the anonymous plaintiff Mary Doe in Doe v. Bolton, a companion case decided the same day as Roe v. Wade, giving mothers of unborn children a very broad range of reasons to declare a need for an abortion — in essence, abortion on demand.
Both McCorvey and Cano would later protest having been used as “pawns” in these cases. For her part, Norma McCorvey, once she understood the larger context for her Creator and that of all unborn children, became an outspoken pro-life advocate for these children, as noted in her 2005 Senate testimony.
McCorvey concluded, “Upon knowing God, I realized that my case, which legalized abortion on demand, was the biggest mistake of my life. You see, abortion has eliminated 50 million innocent babies in the U.S. alone since 1973. Abortion scars an untold number of post-abortive mothers and fathers and families, too. I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation.”
In a later interview, she made clear her life mission: “I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”
Both McCorvey and Cano delivered statements at the dedication of the National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Those statements, cast in bronze on the wall of the Memorial, read as follows:
“Roe v. Wade — I am Norma McCorvey. I became known as Jane Roe on January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court released the Roe v. Wade decision which created a woman’s ‘right to abortion.’ I am now a Child of God, a new creature in Christ. I am forgiven and redeemed. Today, I publicly recant my involvement in the tragedy of abortion. I humbly ask forgiveness of the millions of women and unborn babies who have experienced the violence of abortion. In this place of healing, the National Memorial for the Unborn, I stand with those who honor the worth of every unborn child as created in the image of God. I will strive in the name of Jesus, to end this holocaust. NORMA McCORVEY March 23, 1997”
“Doe v. Bolton — I am Sandra Cano. I became known as Mary Doe when the U.S. Supreme Court released Roe v. Wade’s companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, which allowed abortion for virtually any reason. I am against abortion; I never sought an abortion; I have never had an abortion. Abortion is murder. For over twenty years, and against my will, my name has been synonymous with abortion. The Doe V. Bolton case is based on deceit and fraud. I stand today in this place of healing, the National Memorial for the Unborn, and pledge to the memory of these innocent children, that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America. SANDRA CANO March 23, 1997”
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, is lobbying Democrats in Congress to ensure continuation of its $540 million in annual taxpayer grants for “women’s health.”
On Saturday, Norma McCorvey died of heart failure. Rest in peace. While her walk in defense of the most innocent among us has come to an end, our mission in their defense remains steadfast.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.