Fisking That Infamous White Culture Infographic, VI

Continued from here. (Or you can start at the beginning.)

Aesthetics:

• Based on European culture

Because our majority is European, art in our public square is largely dominated by the European tradition. In China, meanwhile, the Chinese tradition takes center stage. In Japan, the Japanese. 

In this graphic, as you may have noticed, is a lot of hatred for any physical evidence of the majority. But as I have repeatedly noted, the predominance of European culture in a country whose heritage is European is not automatically suspect.

Moreover, this bullet conveniently ignores the interest our cultural institutions currently have in things that are manifestly not European. Indeed, museums/publishers/etc. are so desperate to bring in minority voices and minority aesthetics that they're frequently willing to scrap ethical considerations in their pursuit. Remember: the very piece of trash propaganda we are currently dissecting was promoted by the Smithsonian despite its manifest lack of scholarly rigor or accuracy. In other words, the Smithsonian is apparently so keen to elevate the "marginalized" that it's willing to put aside its responsibility to properly educate the public in favor of boosting intellectual frauds.

• Steak and potatoes; "bland is best"

Any white American who has ever competed in a chili cook-off is currently laughing his ass off.

In actuality, while many of us might see a meal of steak and potatoes as "comfort food," most of us also routinely - and happily - eat things with a little more bite. That's why my brother and sister-in-law were able to find an amazing Mexican restaurant in the middle of East Bumfuck, Arkansas.

What the writers of this infographic are doing is peddling in a stereotype. Sure -- the fare of the larger chains tends to fit into the safe category. But middle America is not the culinary wasteland these elite snobs imagine it to be. We welcome the influences of other cultures; we welcome spice.

• Woman's beauty based on blonde, thin - "Barbie"

First of all, this is a fairly recent development in the history of our beauty standards -- as any cursory familiarity with traditional European painting will make clear.

Secondly, pale coloring is admired all over the world. Sorry. Hate to burst your bubble here, but lighter complexions have been associated with wealth and position - and therefore desirability - in plenty of non-white societies quite independently of European influence. "Colorism," it would seem, has an evolutionary as well as a social component.

Third, our beauty standards expanded beyond the basic Barbie look quite some time ago. Many, many women who don't fit that mold are admired as attractive by the mass of white American men.

Fourth, for people who probably rail against the "male gaze" as well, you seem awfully disturbed at the prospect that men wouldn't find you attractive. How strange.

• Man's attractiveness based on economic status, power, intellect

That's not "whiteness," cupcakes. That's evolution. That's cross-cultural. And it's fairly rational, too. Because the breeding woman is so vulnerable, it behooves her to seek out men who are most likely to keep her in comfort and safety.

What exactly do you want here? Do you actually want women to hook up with losers? Was this written by secret incels?

Holidays:

• Based on Christian religions
• Based on white history & male leaders

And other countries, I'm sure, base their public holidays on the history and traditions of their majority (and honor men because, unfortunately, women were barred from public life for much of human history in most of the world). So what's your point here?

(Also, Martin Luther King, Jr. is honored with a federal holiday -- and most of us support making Juneteenth a holiday as well.)

Justice:

• Based on English common law

Which is bad because?

• Protect property & entitlements

Not to mention your rights to life and liberty.

I've already explained why we protect property in this country, but let me reiterate for the terminally dense: protecting property and protecting lives are not two ends of a dichotomy. They are, in fact, inextricably linked because our property is an extension of our own bodies. When we foster a society in which it's permissible to indiscriminately nick bicycles or smash windows because "lives matter more," what results is an atmosphere of unpredictability that inevitably leads to violence against people. I ask again: how many are now moldering in their graves or recovering from significant injuries because ideologues have sanctioned wholesale attacks against property on the theory that said buildings and goods "can be replaced"?

• Intent counts

And here we get to some really dangerous nonsense. Yes, intent counts. If we were to focus on consequences only, many absurdities would follow. The guy who falls asleep at the wheel and kills a man does not deserve the same punishment as a guy who drives drunk and does the same -- and neither deserve the same punishment as the guy who runs someone over with malice aforethought. But under the crazy system these so-called intellectuals wish to install, all three killers would be charged with the same crime and penalized in the same way. After all, a man is dead in all three cases; in all three cases, the impact is the same.

Of course, the reason why these critical theorists want to discount intent is so they can impose their crackpot paranoia and cognitive distortions on the rest of us. I feel you did something racist; therefore, you did something racist. But this, again, will lead to a tyranny of the insane.

Next