Check your privilege

Translation; Check (stop or reduce) your objectivity

The more objective person has great advantages over the less objective person, and those advantages will be seen by the less objective person as threatening, unfair and oppressive. The less objective person thus sees the more objective as aggressors, imposing all manner of suffering upon the less objective.

It has two great benefits to the ego of the less objective. It reduces the comparative advantage of being objective (thus providing “Social Justice”), and it absolves the less objective of responsibility for their foolishness.

Since it requires a great deal more objectivity (which the less objective hate with a burning passion, much as a vampire would hate the sunlight) to convince the less objective to become more objective, the situation is a sort of Catch-22.

The classic definition of such is paranoia, but I see it more as a convenient method of control, by the less objective, of the more objective. A form of bullying from below, if you will.

So long as we entertain the foolishness of the less objective in any way whatsoever, we are being controlled by, and we are thus encouraging and empowering, the foolish. Our entertaining the foolish comes from our unwillingness to become the targets of their naked outrage. It is cowardice. When we know better, and do it anyway, we deserve everything that results (which will of course be horrible).


7 thoughts on “Check your privilege

    • And replace that observation, or discernment, with fear and anger. The emotions drive out objectivity and, like a virus, seek to replicate themselves in others.

  1. Kurt Schlichter (I think) said the proper response when one of these Jacobins trots out ‘check your privilege’ is “what you call privilege is just me being better than you”. I’m undecided whether I’m happy to be nowhere that these twits exist, or unhappy I can’t make use of such a line.

    • It means “Shut up”: with his ears covered and chanting “Na na na na na” so he can’t hear you.

  2. Yes, it means stop discerning, or shut up. But more importantly, it also means: “start mindlessly obeying me”. That’s the biggest problem — not that it demands the end of reason, but that it demands dictatorship.

    • Yes, absolutely. To put it another way; it is an attack on individual sovereignty. “An attack on individual sovereignty” then is a good definition of Progressivism or any other flavor of authoritarianism, which stands in diametric opposition to the American Principles of Liberty. Thanks for wrapping it up nicely. I had neglected to do that.

      One could put it into spiritual parlance by saying that the darkness cannot tolerate the light. It sees the mere presence of light (discernment) as oppression, inequity, injustice, aggression, a violation, an affront, which in a sense (from the twisted point of view of the darkness) it is.

      Your gift of discernment is an affront to the left. It makes you a blasphemer, and infidel, an apostate, a traitor, a criminal.

      Ayn Rand spoke of this too, in the book Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. She described discernment as that iconic light bulb turning on over someone’s head, that when an authoritarian sees the evidence of it, his reaction in like to that of an arachnophobe suddenly coming face-to-face with big ugly spider; “Kill it! Kill it! Kill it!…” It creates a state of shock, recoil, fear, horror, loathing, hatred and panicked aggression.

      So be it, then! I say. Let’s have it out in the open! Too often we react to the insane reactions of the left, either in like kind, or in just wanting to be left alone in peace, and either way that only lends them credibility and power they would never have otherwise.

Comments are closed.