The Cargo Cult Mentality Behind “White Privilege”

Many of us are familiar with the metaphor of the “cargo cult.” The term itself was coined by the famous physicist Richard Feynman (who, ironically, didn’t actually use the term the way he had described it) in a speech he gave about transparency and integrity in science.  Briefly, the phenomenon of the cargo cult was observed in the South Pacific during World War II. Pacific Islanders would observe the Americans building runways and control towers, and soon after airplanes full of supplies would land and disgorge their contents of goodies.  The islanders would build their own bamboo mockups – runways, towers, even bamboo headsets for the “controllers” – expecting that planes full of food and medicines would come to them as well. Of course, none ever did.

Ultimately, cargo cults rested on a form of magical thinking, on the failure to understand the fundamental reasons for why a phenomenon was taking place.  This led to a miscomprehension about how one could obtained the desired benefits. It’s essentially a crude form of philosophical nominalism, where the form and appearance exist without grasping any of the underlying fundamental reality.

In many ways, the current progressive obsession with “white privilege” is essentially the same kind of thinking. For progs and professional PoCs, white “privilege” – access to the benefits of high civilisation obtained through high trust civil society, philosophy, science, technology, and all the rest – is just something that happened, something which white people lucked into without any merit or ability on their part.  It could just as easily have happened to anyone else, hence it’s “unfair” that whites get all the benefits of what their ancestors laboured to build.

The cargo cult aspect is essentially what the leftist appropriation of Western history and the invasion of our societies is about – because anyone could have done the West, anyone can keep the West going.  White, western Europeans and Anglos aren’t really necessary and since people (like runways and bamboo control towers) seem superficially similar, they can be considered interchangeable so that more pliable replacement populations can be brought in to keep the lights on while yet going along with the globalist program.

Yet, as western nations continue to import low-IQ third worlders, they will not be able to maintain the level of civilisation that they have hithertofore achieved. Cultures and civilisations require more than the presence of warm bodies.

An excellent example of this is found in the decolonialisation of Africa and other parts of the third world. It showed that you can build the infrastructure of western material civilisation and fill it with the spirit of western law and religion, but you can’t maintain it without Euros or Anglos. When the westerners departed, the streets and sewers and airports were left, but the “mental infrastructure” needed to purvey these resources into genuine societal success were lacking. Further, one of the most drastic lasting effects was to “brain drain” these countries, making them even less likely to succeed as societies by stealing away their relatively rarer resources of high-IQ individuals who can make societies function well.

The progressive obsession with viewing human beings as blank slates – free of all interference from genetics or inherited culture – is a fundamentally flawed way of understanding humanity.  Equally mistaken is the civic nationalism – often entertained by classical liberals and other notional conservatives – which suggests that by merely granting a piece of paper to someone from a radically different cultural or genetic group, you can turn that person into a good American citizen (or one of another western nation).

You can’t, however, and experience proves this.  In practically every case of immigration from the third world, the immigrants retain significant elements of their birth cultures and tend towards forming ethnic enclaves.  They distort their adopted societies by demanding (either directly or indirectly) that concessions be made to them, rather than conforming to their new homes.  They bring with them old tribal animosities from their homelands which create unnecessary frictions in their new societies.  If nothing else, the door left open to progressives to demand accommodation for immigrants through multiculturalism drastically warps the laws and customs of their host countries and allows for “entryism” at a national level.

Civic nationalism is the very quintessence of the nominalism that underlies this cargo cult mentality: we’ll take a non-westerner, give him a piece of paper that says he’s a citizen, and pretend that he becomes one of us merely by naming him as such.  Propositional citizenship (and by extension, nationhood) of this type is wishful thinking at its most destructive.

It’s completely cargo cult.  It’s the societal equivalent of building the bamboo tower and the bamboo headsets and thinking to use them to call down airplanes full of newly-minted good citizens truly devoted to the total and complete advancement of our societies.  No airplanes full of these people ever come, nor ever will.  At best, you may get some economic mercenaries who want to leech off of western wealth and prosperity, while hating the white westerners whose cultures and ancestors made it all possible.

Societal success is not something that “just happens.” Western nations were successful because they were filled with western peoples – peoples who combined unique religious, cultural, genetic, and linguistic characteristics into patterns that allowed them to build high civilisation.  To the extent that there is a “privilege” involved in all of this, it is one that can’t simply be transferred to others wholesale by progressives seeking to appropriate the external functions while dispensing with the fundamental materials that built the success which progressives and professional PoCs envy so much. Their cargo cult is doomed to failure, but threatens to destroy high civilisation while doing so.  Let us do whatever is necessary to see that this does not happen.

 

3 thoughts on “The Cargo Cult Mentality Behind “White Privilege”

  1. This article is written from a perspective that I most certainly do not agree with, however, I read it anyway because I believe in looking at arguments from opposing views in order to both learn from them and offer critique. Thus, I intend to discuss a few of the issues this article presents in detail.

    First of all, while it is true that many white people worked hard to build current Western civilizations, this article ignores the contributions of important non-white citizens of Western nations who were both born and raised in those societies. Examples of such people include Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States among many others. These were neither anglos nor euros and yet they contributed heavily in areas such as law, philosophy, and technology to the point where their impact is still discussed today.

    Second, this article assumes that most people from non-Western nations are of a low IQ. This is quite an assumption, as there are many non-Western societies that have a plethora of high IQ individuals, such as China, India, and Japan where education is valued to a high degree.

    Let us also recognize that another underlying assumption that is often made when a country has a lower IQ score than another one is that the country being referenced is therefore dumber. This is not true in the slightest. To argue such a thing shows a blind spot in Western culture that is all too common, namely that the only kind of knowledge is textbook knowledge that one learns in school. This is the kind of knowledge tested by the IQ test, which itself carries an implicit bias. There are many other types of knowledge out there, such as hands-on knowledge (i.e. house building, etc.) and emotional knowledge (i.e. knowing how to communicate with people) that are fundamentally more important to life than the things we learn in high school. After all, it was not evolution or chemistry that built the schools in which we learn, it was men and their hands. Thus, this article contains a quite arrogant bias towards Western ways of learning, rather than considering that there are both other types of learning and knowledge present in other cultures that are equally valid.

    Third, this article argues that genetics has something to do with whether or not a person can be smart or learn to adapt to Western society. While I do agree that culture can often be a stumbling block for foreigners wanting to integrate into Western society, it is not impossible for a foreigner to adapt to Western society and cultural values as I can think of several people who I know personally that have done so, mostly from Africa and Latin America. They were not educated in the same way as people from the United States and yet they learned how to navigate the system, interact with Americans, and speak English quite well with their differing genetics. It is also important to recognize that the pendulum swings two ways, in that it is also difficult for white people entering other cultures to adapt to those cultures due to cultural upbringing. We have no advantage in that regard. In addition, no proof is offered in the article to prove that genetics has anything to do with cultural adaptation and IQ.

    Fourth, this article oversimplifies the process of citizenship and residency that many people have to go through in order to stay here. As someone who has worked with refugees and immigrants over the years, I can honestly say that it is not an easy process. The process is not as easy as handing someone a slip of paper, these people have to jump through many hoops and do much paperwork in order to even be considered for residency. Even for those who come here as refugees, there is an application process involved. For citizenship, one is not handed a piece of paper, but must take a test on the history and law of the United States after going through a citizenship interview, this is true even for refugees brought here by the government. There is a lot of painstaking hard work involved.

    Fifth, this article fails to truly understand what white privilege truly is (as most articles about that subject by white people do). The article explains the concept as follows: “white ‘privilege’ – access to the benefits of high civilization obtained through high trust civil society, philosophy, science, technology, and all the rest – is just something that happened, something which white people lucked into without any merit or ability on their part.” This is not what is meant by the term white privilege. White privilege refers to the systematic favoring of white people by law and cultural norms present in American society. White privilege is not the idea that white people did not work hard to build Western society. White privilege is the reality that in Western societies, minority populations, who also work hard to build them, have had to go through a lot more pain in order to have their value, worth, dignity, and accomplishments recognized by the majority culture and law. It is something that has been present from the country’s inception as colonies when laws were created to subjugate black people and other minorities by the House of Burgesses in Virginia. It was present when after three servants escaped from a family in the colonies, two black and one white, the two white servants were only assigned to work for the master for a few more years, whereas the black servant was reassigned for life. It was present in the drafting of the Constitution, when slaves, all black people, were counted as 3/5ths of a person, rather than as a whole person. It is present still today in that people with more white-sounding names are often called for job interviews, whereas people with other names are not as likely to get a job. It is an injustice that fails to recognize that minorities are also made in the image of God and therefore deserve equality and dignity equal to that of the white population.

    In conclusion, rather than undermine the idea of white privilege, this article has actually helped in displaying its existence by failing to recognize the contributions of minorities to Western society, measuring the intelligence of other cultures by white cultural standards, arguing that minorities are less smart because of their race/genetics, oversimplifying the process of citizenship (which American citizens do not have to go through), and failing to recognize the racist laws and cultural norms that have kept minorities in subjugation throughout the history of the United States. I am not liberal, nor am I conservative. I write this, not only because I enjoy philosophical discussion, but also out of the conviction that God is a God of justice who has open ears to the oppressed (Psalm 10:17-18) and that all men are created in his image (Genesis 1:26-27). For this reason, I argue for the dignity of all men in the hopes that we will one day shed the cargo cult mentality that if we ignore the oppression and contributions of minorities and build a society that recognizes only white people then Western culture will continue to be as it always has been without any change. Essentially I am arguing against a crude form of philosophical nominalism, where the form and appearance exist without grasping any of the underlying fundamental reality about the experience of minorities in the West.

    Like

Leave a comment