Those who talk narratives of glass ceilings and racial superiority shouldn’t throw stones in glass houses.
It should go without say that you can’t tell much about individuals based on groups. If one were to take the average earnings of men, the average earnings of women, pit these groups against each other, ignore all the complexities to these millions of people, who all have to live in that uncontrollable liberal economy, you find yourselves at the feet of the 77 cents wage gap narrative. The narrative having a bit of truth, surrounded by lies by omission and neglect of everything that individuals themselves have done before, if you look at the world with a basic lens of collectivism.
You could say this is why liberals, in the British sense of the word, embraced the economics of F.A. Hayek, the economist author of “The Road to Serfdom”.
An individualist at heart, often considering the person who had to live in the times and markets he described, Hayek discussed this fundamental rule: individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive. Competing collective ideologies, despite political wings and aggression, makes for ease of conversion.
He illustrated this with his shared views on “The Great Utopia”, comparing the Nazis with Communism, two threats of his time which inspired his aforementioned book:
“The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was generally known in Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties.
It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922, communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related.
To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber. Although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.”
The mention of prophets is distinct to understanding how collectives function. By definition, collectives must have an out group which include… well… everyone else. The pure vs. the sinful. The revolutionary and their oppressor. Those who are “people of the book”, to steal a line from the Islamic scripture, and the free thinking heretic who wants to live a free man.
These are religious concepts of good and evil, and the shared disdain for the common enemy, the nominal individual who is the smallest minority of society, now brought into the secular and economic framework.
It’s all group-think.
These days, the collective “in-groups” of the authoritarian spectrum take different shapes: There’s neo-progressivism (or the “alt-left”), with the belief in an intersectional stack of oppression, and the alt-right, the belief in white ethno-nationalism and intersectional oppression… where they’re on top.
The shared group think is unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. I would argue they’d make for great satire. Their movements predicate on the concept that whites, to whatever capacity, hold superiority in society. The difference? The alt-right has a disgusting pride in this notion, where as the neo-progressives, as aptly described by Sargon of Akkad, are “white supremacists with a guilty conscious”.
“Freedom allows white men to control everything,” said Thomas Smith at the Atheist conference Mythicist Milwaukee, him being a man who proudly sides with the intersectional progressive left.
Does this problematic statement, assuming white people inherently achieve to the top if freedom is allowed, not sound like the boastings of a Richard Spencer, just with a tinge of guilt to it?
Spencer, the leader of the alt-right movement, is a man who told Charles Barkley he outright believes in the notion of white privilege, just with the caveat that he wants to “expand it”.
Ask about white privilege to the liberal, such as myself, and we’ll tell you it’s all circumstantial depending on the situation. The white individual will do fine in the man’s world of wall street in firms like Stratton Oakmont, yet horribly in the apartheid regimes in Zimbabwe. The white Aryan girl will walk home fine in Occupied Nazi France, but is in danger once placed in the hands of the Newcastle grooming gang.
These are individual situations, with individual people, where power has been enforced circumstantially, for and against, the races we’re discussing.
It’s not a clear answer.
Like theists, the collectivist will give you the same answers. They have their notions of the power structures, whether it be the patriarchy or the ethno-state, which result in them believing white people are the most successful.
Whether they like it or not is irrelevant. Their belief still rings of white superiority, seeking either complete artificial equity, or complete artifical inequity at the expense of human freedom.
The alt-right speak for their group interest, where they reign supreme, and the neo-progressive plays white saviour or diversity revolutionary to their group’s interest, willing to toss freedom of all aside, including those they represent, to have an equality of outcome for all.
Notice the commonality between Nazism and Communism?
It’s the liberal who disagrees with their belief, seeing the individuals for what they’re worth and not their coat of skin, that is more problematic than the neo-progressive or alt-right idiot who share the racial superiority narrative.
Their narrative hits writer’s block when they’re left with “the asian question”.
Reported on by Vox, the Pew Research Center found that Asian men’s median hourly earnings, without taking into account all the complexities of their jobs, were higher than white men’s — $24 to $21, respectively.
On the side of Asian women, they earned more on average than white women — $18 per hour versus $17 per hour (that’s more than 77c, neo-progressives. Pay attention and stick true to your standards).
While it’s regrettable that for black and Hispanic wage earners, regardless of their sex, the median hourly earnings were between $12 and $15, since every normal person wants someone to make good money, you notice their power structure collapses under the tyranny of statistics.
Whereas feminists are not concerned about the “glass cellar”, which is in regards to the wage disparity between men and women who clean sewage and scrub floors, both neo-progressives and the alt-right ignore the Asian out group, and the individuals within it, that do well for themselves, at least by their own standards, compared to their white counterparts.
Even progressive outlets like Vox admit:
“White women now earn 22 cents more to every white man’s dollar than they did in 1980, with Asian-American women following a similar trajectory.”
This is very impressive if you consider the Asian demographic in America make up only 5.6% of the population, compared to a strong 63% white, non-hispanic population.
NBC report that this is often due to education and workforce experience, particularly when it comes to the tribulations of the black, hispanic and white communities, while others from the three groups atest to discrimination (though don’t go into detail).
Without those details, we can’t judge what happened, let alone build policy and enforce them on individuals without evidence. I’m sure someone somewhere is being discriminated against. We deal with those on a case by case basis, not heresy and broad, propagandised statistics.
To the neo-progressives and the alt-right, statistics, as they stand in a meritocratic system such as ours, are tyrannical to the cause. Wanting to inflate the for their purpose. This inflation often taking the shape of quotas, whether systematic or consciously in the hiring process.
Again, it’s freedom of merit replaced with equity/inequity for a cause.
By artificially manipulating the workplace, whether it’s diversity in favour of one group or white-washing in favour of one group, it will always be discrimination against the outside group. The collectivists cannot deny this reality if they tried. It’s a reality that is completely unjust.
With that, you have to wonder why these power cravers, who want to make their utopia, don’t have a hatred for the successful Asian demographic. Libertarian liberals and conservatives don’t. Go make that money, man. We’re happy that you have a quality job for yourself, your family and live a somewhat put together life. The achievements and qualifications of the applicant for who they are, not what they look like or the group they belong, must always be put forward.
But to the collectivist, it’s curious why they’re not problematic. Why they choose to ignore them and place themselves as the successful race that needs to be torn down or built up higher. Would they not be discriminating against the minorities they represent? Would they have to concede that whites, if they have to think in groups, are not better than everyone? Will they have to concede an individualistic reason that breaks their narrative? Or will they just hate the individualist all the same? My hopes aren’t exactly high.
Bailey T. Steen is a journalist, editor, artist and film critic based in Victoria, Australia. To support this content, and more to come like it, the options include Patreon and Paypal, where I hope to keep this content free.
My content has been graciously published on Trigtent, Janks Reviews,Newslogue and right here on Medium. For updates and contact, the best place to touch base is on Twitter and Facebook, and the comments below.