The statism religion is like any false ideology. Because it is a lie that contradicts reality and the natural order of things, it needs superstitions to not only explain that which it doesn’t understand, but justify its control and use of violence to achieve its goals.
This is probably the most important thing to understand about people who advocate for government. Deep down, they know what they do is, in so many words, violent. It takes violence to force people to pay money to the government to fund all the criminal activities it does. It takes violence to force people to stop consuming products which are illegal simply because the government says so. It takes violence to get people to obey pointless, senseless laws.
People with a moral conscience can’t help but notice those who rely on violence typically do so because they don’t have a moral leg to stand on. As Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn remarked, violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.
There are two ways statists explain why state violence is necessary. One is pre-emptive self-pity described by Hannah Arendt in her study Eichmann in Jerusalem documenting the mentality the Nazis had to adopt in order to kill innocent Jews by turning themselves into victims.
…instead of saying: `What horrible things I did to people!,’ the murderers would be able to say: `What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!’”
The other way to get around the violence issue is by inventing superstitions that justify violence in which a mystical, unseen force exists that causes people to violate the rights of others and can only be stopped by government.
You see these two attitudes in the social justice ideology. Their grievances always involve creating a victim that either doesn’t exist or was the victim of state violence, and then concocting superstitions to explain how they came to be victims by someone other than the state.
These superstitions have several distinct features. The worst of these is that they are vaguely defined. The blame is never set at the feet of any specific persons. The culprit for injustice, real or not, is always the fault of an entire demographic, a trait you also see in genuine instances of racism.
Simply by being a member of the demographic, you are guilty no matter what you’ve done or not done in your personal life.
The purpose of this is to avoid losing an argument; the best way to not lose is to never say anything too specific. By doing so, you maintain the option of plausible deniability when someone, say, a libertarian, correctly refutes your myth, at which point you can cry, “You’re not understanding me! That’s not what I said!”
It also doesn’t require presenting a single iota of evidence to prove. It is the Big Lie and simply needs to be repeated enough times to be believed.
Of course, it’s not hard to demolish these myths or get around the smokescreen. All you have to do is ask two simple, but vital questions:
1. What do you mean by that? (Force them to define the terms they use)
2. How did you come to that conclusion? (Force them to provide evidence)
To steer clear of this, they employ ad hominem attacks, which instinctively make the accused feel as though they have to prove the accuser wrong, which is nonsense.
The White Male Privilege Myth
One such myth is that of white male privilege in the United States, or pretty much the Western World, which is when there is any discrepancy between white males and any other demographic. This myth exists to justify state-sanction aggression and coercion against people like myself as well as cover up messes created by the state.
No one quite knows what it means, but if I were to define this superstition, it is the concept that all white males are born with innate privileges that came at the expense of non-white/non-males around them. The important part is this it is only regarded as “privilege” if white males are the majority in a category in which it is beneficial to be the majority.
As a white male, I have been directly accused of having this privilege, but whenever I have asked for an example of this, every single one of them involved aspects of my life that had been benefited either by wise choices on my part or my parents.
Why People Who Believe in White Male Privilege are Dishonest
You can’t believe in white male privilege – as I’ve defined it – and still live in reality. You just can’t. It is so absurd it cannot be anything other than projection by those who claim it exists.
Or, if you live in Europe, you can’t believe in white male privilege and also live in a continent where a British white male who accomplished one of the most important feats not just in his own life but in human history – landing a spacecraft on a comet – is shamed to tears by a bunch of raving idiots who couldn’t parallel park a Mini Cooper if they tried, all for the crime of wearing a “sexist” shirt covered with women made for him by his female friend (I also don’t recall seeing any protests against his treatment on a major scale in the U.S.).
Back in the USA, you can’t believe in this myth because when you apply for jobs you find the following statement at the bottom (literally copied from one job description).
We are an equal opportunity employer. Women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons of disability, persons over 40 years of age, and disabled and Vietnam era veterans are encouraged to apply.
You can’t believe it in Washington because it’s a state where a university president of a public college can openly state “If in decades ahead, we are as white as we are today, we will have failed as university” without losing his job.
The concept of white male privilege is so counter to reality that its believers, which included a
former charlatan libertarian, resort to claims that a digital currency which anyone can use, involves white male privilege simply because white men used it most.
Yes, you can think we’re stupid. Just don’t talk to us like we are.
Much like the rape culture myth, this myth requires a supreme level of cognitive dissonance, or ignorance, to believe. I could write 10,000 words about highly unpleasant things I’ve had to deal with in the last five years, or my continuing struggle to obtain employment above the poverty line – which is why the privilege accusation stings so hard. But it’s not the point. Besides, my personal experiences can’t prove or disprove this myth, but it doesn’t help detractors, either.
The Damage Caused by the White Male Privilege Myth
What makes this myth so harmful is that its not just ignorant, but it’s requires proponents to dismiss any hardships, trials, or difficulties white males have had to endure or overcome in their own lives. Much like Sherlock Holmes said, if you assume a theory before finding facts you begin to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.
As someone who has grown up and worked around poor white people, I can tell you that no one who believes in white male privilege has ever ventured outside a major metropolitan area for any extended period of time. If they did, they would observe that for every “privileged” white male out there like Mitt Romney, there is a Billy Joe living in a cheap apartment next door to the disabled Vietnam veteran with severe PTSD and has the “privilege” of subsisting off of government welfare while watching his body slowly rot away from cirrhosis and diabetes after a decades-long diet of cheap, unhealthy food because it’s all he could afford and is finally found dead in the middle of his apartment complex (the example is not theoretical).
Men like Billy Joe are not acknowledged at all, at least not when discussing white male privilege. They are kept in the attic until the discussion turns into how anyone who doesn’t like the state is just
privileged poor white trash with anti-social problems.
Additionally, the white male privilege myth dismisses any possibility that someone rightfully earned what they have due to their perseverance. Any accomplishments or achievements in their life are belittled as being the outcome of having “privilege.” Or, as our illustrious leader put it, “You didn’t build that.”
Another insidious aspect of this myth is that it turns privilege into a necessarily bad thing, when it’s not. If I am saving money now for my (hypothetical) child’s education and he is able to attend college without having to take out loans because of this, it is a privilege for him, but why should this be considered a bad thing?
Why should people’s prudent decisions be ridiculed? Should they rather instead be emulated?
Therein lies the rub with the privilege myth. The superstition is based on the idea that the privileges came at the expense of others. Therefore, it was stolen and needs to be given back via the state.
I obviously don’t deny that many minorities have gotten the short end of the stick in life throughout history and even today. But the problems of minorities today is the fault of government, not white men. Black men make up a much higher percentage of the prison population and their chief reason for arrest are nonviolent victim-less offenses. No intellectually honest person would ever argue that a kid from a rich WASP family attending Yale who gets caught snorting cocaine in his residential hall is as likely to get arrested or go to jail as the poor black counterpart.
This problem, however, is not caused by the WASP kid’s “privilege.” He’s not the one who breaks down black men’s front door during SWAT raids and kidnaps them with a gun and badge and shoots them if they resist. He’s not the one choking men like Eric Garner to death for having the audacity to sell cigarettes without paying the state their extortion fee.
Making him as likely to go to jail for snorting cocaine is not going to solve the problem with black men being incarcerated for nonviolent, victimless crimes or having urban communities treated like occupied war zones. This entire problem could be solved by abolishing the War on Drugs.
Yes, there are some social justice warriors who advocate for decriminlization of drugs, and in doing so they take the libertarian stance, but this is an example of what I call “one-hit libertarianism.” They choose the libertarian option on one issue and because of this think that’s what libertarianism is all about. Sorry, but libertarianism is about more than being able to smoke weed.
The Real “Privileges” Are Held by the State
There are actually many people who have illegitimate privileges, but they’re not obtained due to the person’s gender or race. Politicians in D.C. have privileges obtained by expropriating from others. Public employees get pensions and salaries way above the private sector because the people who pay their wages are coerced into doing so. Police have the privilege of qualified immunity that allows them to engage in activities that if anyone else did would be considered a heinous crime. Child Protective Services have the “privilege” of being able to kidnap children from their parents on a whim of an accusation.
These privileges are derived not by racial/gender discrimination in a free market, but through the coercive power of the state, which means the remedy for any of these “bad” privileges is to get the state out of the equation.
Of course, the social justice warriors propose the exact opposite. Whether they call themselves progressives or left libertarians, they have a fever and their only cure is more government. Try getting a social justice warrior to provide a solution to the “white male privilege question” that doesn’t involve passing laws restricting people’s rights per the NAP.
What the myth is really about is not just an excuse to discriminate, but it’s also to justify why we need state intervention in our private lives.
This is why libertarianism and social justice ideology don’t mix; libertarianism promotes the abolition of the state because it is a criminal entity and as such the root cause of many problems and conflicts in society; social justice ideology believes the coercive power of the state is the answer to inequalities and injustices that are the innate result of a voluntary society.
The two are simply mutually exclusive and always will be.