(06-04-2020, 09:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.

I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.

These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.

The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.

The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.

About the part in bold: yes, it is true than one can rise up and be successful in this system.  But it is also true that that is easier for some than it is for others, due to the advantages that some people are born with.  When I was born white male middle class in the United States, I hit the lottery.  Add to that the fact that my parents were very well educated, and had connections that I could use to advance my career, and I can see that my success is largely due to advantages I was born with.  If I had not been born white male middle class American, and if I had put forth the exact same amount of effort I put out in my career, I would probably have gone nowhere.  So I got where I got through a lot of luck in addition to whatever abilities I had.  

The question we will always grapple with is, is it fair that some people are born with advantages?  We all want equal opportunity for all, but that doesn't really exist.  We are all born with different levels of opportunity.  A person who is born poor or black does not have the same level of opportunity that a person who is born white middle class has.  We have to admit that, and then we have to decide if there is anything we want to do about that.

The advantage you had was a strong family unit that preached hard work and education. If, by some chance, you were born into a terrible situation, but still adopted those values, there is a very high chance statistically you would have done ok. The problem is it's hard to adopt those values when they are not being shared. They are not shared because they are not part of the progressive platform. Education is, don't get me wrong, but that is primarily because it reinforces the progressive narrative.

---