Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Why The Captain is Anti-Men's Rights and Anti-White Rights

On my statcounter I noticed some traffic coming from a Reddit subgroup called "White Rights."  I believe it referenced a post of mine mocking the concept of diversity wherein German is having a raccoon infestation problem.  They want to get rid of the raccoons because it threatened eco-diversity.  I asked the question, "well, wait, isn't the addition of raccoons by definition an increase in eco-diversity and therefore good?"  And then plied this failed logic to diversity in humans with merriment and humor.

However, what concerned me was that there's a group for "white rights."  I couldn't put my finger on it, but there was something bothering me about it.  This wasn't a "white supremacy" group, just a group advocating whites getting equal treatment (I surmise) so it wasn't racism that was bothering me.  But it was akin to establishing a "Male studies" department.  Matter of fact it was the exact same feeling of disagreement I had when I heard there were people kicking around starting a male studies department.

So I sat and tried to figure it out and found out why this was bothering me so.

It is a lack of character, integrity and honesty that is driving such groups.  It is hypocrisy.

What angers me so much about "group based" politics is it jettisons the individual's responsibility for their own actions and conveniently excuses or forgives their failures based on their (you name it)

sexual orientation
etc. etc.

AND at the same time blames other people for their failures through


It is cowardice.  It's childishness.  It's refusing to be a responsible adult.  It's hypocrisy.

Now I am male and I am white.  And I can more than understand how people in that category get righteously angry when people accuse you through implication of being racist, sexist, a bigot, etc. etc.  And I can also understand where there might be a drive or a desire to "create our own group."  But that is nothing more than becoming the exact same cowards, charlatans and hypocrites who hide behind their sex, race, religion, creed, etc. that we despise.  And understand we despise them NOT because of their race, creed, color, religion, sex, but because they use those traits as excuses for their failures AND, by default, blame those failures on our communal oppression (which is where you get such nonsense from hyphenated-studies programs where only "whites" can be racist).

So why would we want to become what we hate?

I propose something instead. 

We advocate the elimination of group-based politics and victimization classes.  We champion treating everybody equally.  Nobody gets special rights, because nobody is special.  We are all equally crappy, slothful, lazy, debt-ridden, work-eschewing, math-impaired American losers who want the Chinese to lend us more money to buy Apple products we can't afford.  Nobody is unique, nobody is special and you should be shamed if you judge somebody (for worse OR BETTER) because of their race, creed, sex, etc. etc. 

Because not only is this what Martin Luther King was aiming for, it's the only way it's going to work.  You can go ahead an have different groups with different rights and once those lines are draw you've now created "teams" and because of lesser minds they will battle against one another, be it socially, economically, politically or even in the streets.  Or, you can eliminate differential (preferential or negative) treatment of all groups and treat everybody equally.

In short, don't play into the hands of socialists, liberals, feminists and communists.  Don't become like them.  There is no reason for a "male studies" department just as there is no need for "white rights."  It is the unfair privileges we grant to everybody else that needs to be eliminated.


Anonymous said...

Captain, this post doesn't sit well with me.

Things i agree with:
Men's studies/white studies is BS and shouldn't exist.

I think you are assuming that's the goal of MR movement. The goal of MR IS equal treatment for genders, which is similar to a lot of libertarians, but they/we don't have a good word to describe it.

"Equalist/Egalitarian" sounds like you like equality of outcome. Some people aren't ready to go full "Libertarian", but they recognize that men are mistreated in society and that's bad.

Tim said...

This is a pretty good article.

It is indeed stupid to have things like women's studies and racial studies. But it would even be more stupid to add to it with a men's studies.

Can we agree, that for the most part modern colleges, or one thing, are a terrible waste of time and money?

I suppose that a men's studies program is similar to a start to the things that the republican party has come to: growing government at a slower rate.

An equal playing field should mean the same rules for everybody.

And now that I think of it, I wrote a post on the subject a while ago: What is fair?


M. Steve said...

It is impossible for any race/gender/group based thinking to not eventually degenerate into leftism. I was initially interested in r/MensRights only because it seemed a place where the feminist groupthink that pervades the rest of that place was challenged. However, it quickly was taken over with leftist types who seek to use the same victim ideologies, just for men as well.

Anytime you define a political movement based on predetermined group membership, rather than, say, excellence or achievement, there is leftism, because that is the *heart* of leftism. I could never get into WN or men's rights because I have more in common with black female achievers than I do white male leeches. In the absence of a cultural ethos, I revere achievement. Maybe it would be different if the culture was different, but you parlay with the culture you have, not the culture you want.

Omega Male 2012 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
William Hughes said...

All of these hyphenated right's movements are bullshit. I fly with the Cap on this one.

Normal Guy said...

Since my last post was deleted. I'll try again.

Putting university courses for women and minorities aside. I agree with you there, absolute waste of time and money to have these as actual degrees.

However, what exactly is wrong with having groups that work towards goals? What is wrong with a group, for instance, trying to protect farmers who are being brutally murdered and tortured, or the rights of a minority who are being targeted by a State for discrimination? I just don't see the hypocrisy, childishness or cowardice there.

When there are actual laws on the law books that directly discriminate against a group, what exactly should one do? For instance, Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment, Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment, Employment Equity, Equity Scorecards for Businesses, preferential treatment for Government Contracts based on the 'diversity' of one's company and those it hires? Those are the laws of South Africa, they directly discriminate against a minority. A minority that is listed at between stage 5 and 6 under 'Genocide Watch'. Minorities in this country pay majority of the tax. Whites pay close to 80 % but yet are less than 10 % of the population and dropping fast. As I said in my previous post, this is an issue of survival.

The game of politics is based on groups. Politicians pander to those that form larger groupings in order to get a higher voting base. The only way to counter that is to form another group of like minded people. You're doing it yourself right here on your blog.

"Frustrated Economists of the World - Unite!"

If you see fit to post this, please do so. If you can't, at least show me where exactly this and my previous comment fell short of your standards.

Thank you.

Captain Capitalism said...

Hi Normal Guy,

I'm not disagreeing with what is happening. That IS happening. The difference we have is the solution. I want to eliminate any preferntial treatment of anybody. I want equal treatment of all people.

Setting up "white rights" or "white groups" doesn't solve the problem of ID-based politics.

But the point you make about "frustrated economists of the world unite" exemplifies my point.

Economists are not made by race or gender. It's pepole who've studied economics. Forming groups based on ideas or beliefs make sense because it is a person's brain, believes, ideas, etc., that defines them. Not their sexual preference or race. It is ideas that unite different people. Not making laws or ordinances based on traits they have no control over. That merely divides them.


Bun E Carlos said...

Hey Cap, by the time your ideas would be "implemented" whites will be a minority in every single white nation on earth. You're a utopian, but if you haven't noticed the anti-whites running the West, have their own idea of utopia and it doesn't include white males.

So you've resigned yourself to respectable conservative status, in other words, you've become irrelevant. Enjoy being diversified (goal of diversity is zero white people) into oblivion while you try to convince non-whites how much better things would be if they just acted...white like you.

Realiti Czech said...

Cap'n, I like your solution. I just don't think it's feasible at this time.
The grievance groups (GGs for the rest of this post) are getting perks - better employment chances, given equal skills, more chance for promotion, more scholarships for them alone, you name it. Lots of benefits to being in a GG.
Why would these GGs willingly forgo all the benefits I mentioned? In the name of equality?
I don't see that happening. Do you see the Boomers saying "oh, we know Social Security is unsustainable, so you don't have to pay us. The solvency of future generations is what matters." No. Why? People like perks and benefits. It takes a lot of persuasion to get them to change.
I think 'white rights', and Men's Studies departments may be the way to get them to change their mind - by competing for and securing resources and perks. If men's groups are profiting as well as or more than women's groups, women will be naturally inclined to scream for equality (again, for their own benefit). Besides, when everyone is a grievance group, nobody is.

Jehu said...

Your approach has been tried by respectable conservatives as far back as I can remember. How's it working out for you?

The only way you can fight identity politics without identity politics is to punish its users sufficiently that such aggregation is detrimental to them.

That's not happening nor do you have any ability to make it happen.

What you suggest amounts to unilateral disarmament in the Who...Whom game. That's not a good idea.

Anthony said...

Bun E Carlos, Reality Czech, and Jehu -

The way I see it, and I think the way that the Cap'n sees it, it's leftism in general that's causing the decline. If we're going to have any chance *at all* to reverse the decline, we need to attack leftism *directly* - make the moral case for freedom and capitalism, and make the moral case that group-identity politics is *immoral*. Not argue that the left's proposed distribution needs to be adjusted a little.

You can't do that if you buy into the same leftist ideas. The average person will say "Well, I'm white, and I've got it ok - better than those black/hispanic/etc. folks down in the ghetto. Why should I care. I'm getting a decent enough piece of the pie already." And because it ain't racism that keeps whites' shares of the pie larger than blacks', that attitude isn't going to change.

The Men's Rights movement, as it relates to the disaster of family law in this country, is badly named. It really is about anti-discrimination. They should name it something like "Family Fairness".

V10 said...

I'm with the Captain. In the end, playing by the left's rules of identity politics is self-destructive.

Still, I can't help but sympathize with these guys that want to draw a line in the sand and assert that our cultural heritage and gender identity is just as deserving of celebration as any other.

When you weigh the contributions of European males to human civilization as a whole, be it in science, law, philosophy or economics, it's like trying to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room. Nobody's cultural history is composed entirely of saints, but it's infuriating that the only thing we get credit for is the Evil White Patriarchy.