For those playing along at home, this is the sequel to my previous blog where I put forth the first slate of candidates to be celebrated as the most privileged people on the planet. If you missed the initial article, you can find it here. Knowing you have been on the edge of your seat, I promise that your curiosity will soon be sated. 

There is one more addition that ought never be have garnered anything like mainstream acceptance. That said, those who have been mocked for making the slippery slope argument that this was inevitable given the de-stigmatization and subsequent mainstream endorsement of formerly unthinkable ideas have once again been proved right.

7) PEDOPHILES:

While they do not yet enjoy the same public acceptance afforded to the rest of those on the rainbow spectrum, they have gained a foothold with their own identification flag as I unfurled in my blog, “If the Christians Loved Their Children Too.” We can anticipate that in the not too distant future, pedophiles can expect to add their initials to the plus-sized list of sexual deviances and indulgences. Granted, they may not be so audacious as to label it paedophilia, but we can likely anticipate some euphemism as a more respectable alternative. Keep in mind that in the same blog referenced above, this identity group is being deferentially referred to as MAPs (Minor Attracted Persons). 

While many may balk at the term “grooming,” the protestations are merely about optics. Much like “choice” is to be preferred over “the barbaric and whimsical dismemberment and suctioning the living child in the womb before crushing his or her skull to selfishly negate the biological inevitability arising from recreational sex”; we are merely engaged in a semantic dispute.

This calls to mind the oft-cited scenario of the woman who blanches, but relents when a man propositions her to have sex with him for a million dollars. The man then claws back his price to $10 at which point the woman becomes outraged and offended, retorting, “What kind of woman do you think I am?” His response is “We’ve already settled that question. Now we’re just haggling over the price.” With each of these ideologies, we have seen the price drop precipitously over time. We may be fairly close still to the million dollar point on the continuum, but the haggling is underway when it comes to acceptance of child sexual exploitation.

An audacious attempt to breach the battlements already took place roughly a decade ago when NAMBLA – another anachronistic euphemism that stands for “The North American Man-Boy Love Association – took part in pride parades. These reprehensible cockroaches scurried away only after Christians and conservatives drew attention to this misstep. Just like when Trudeau froze the bank accounts of peaceful Ottawa protesters, their nefarious hand was tipped before the appointed time.

We are being encouraged to have sympathy for those whose appetites lure them toward the prepubescent. Not long ago, those exposed as engaging in pedophile behaviour were at the bottom of the prison pecking order and were derisively referred to as “short eyes.” Of course, it used to be that raping women was only one rung higher. Now, we invite men who claim to feel like a woman to enter women’s prisons and carry on their raping ways.

Presently our schools are mandated to carry out the sexual grooming of children and parents are barred from school board meetings or even arrested for trying to carry out that most basic of tasks – namely, protecting their children from predators. Drag queen story hours and drag shows have somehow become essentials for children who often come out of school illiterate and unable to do basic math. The outrage was reserved for the former practice of school prayer and scripture reading at the start of the day.

Arguably, the most privileged company on earth – Walt Disney – has staked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour by voluntarily entering the fray to defend the sexual grooming of children in public school. No one asked their opinion, but they went full Bud Light by injecting themselves into this war against children and families who, if memory serves, used to be their target audience.

Also, hot off the presses, the United Nations has now established as a global principle that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable as long as the child consents. In the good old days, we used to guard children against adults who offered candy. Now it can be regarded as an inducement to give consent to something that carries profound risks and harm they can’t even begin to understand – much like the way they induced the public to take an experimental and dangerous gene injection.

This doesn’t even start to address the child sex trafficking under the guise of “immigration” where even much of the church has thrown their support behind child exploitation.

Before we move into groups whose privilege goes beyond all the those listed so far, I want to take a moment to ponder the implications and underlying assumptions used to under-gird the defense of granting special treatment to some because others wrongly enjoyed special treatment they didn’t have. This can be best understood as over-correction instead of course correction. Consider the following questions:

1) If the underlying assumption is that some enjoying elevated privileges is immoral, does an effort to re-calibrate this process to simply favour others correct the problem or merely switch up teams in support of a new cast feeding a corrupt hierarchy?

2) Is it just to condemn future generations for the sins of their forebears? Is it wise or beneficial to ascribe victimhood status to individuals based on group identity divorced from their lived experience? What is the path for those condemned under this guilt by association worldview to throw off the weight of unearned culpability? Is there a point at which the malevolent and abusive actions of those presumptively numbered among the victim class become worthy of condemnation? If not, what do the terms of privilege and victimization even mean?

3) How can reconciliation happen if everyone is doomed to remain in their platoons of privilege or adversity? If it’s not possible, why even make it an issue if we are fated by genetics and emotions to remain trapped in our respective prisons?

4) When those who are classified by birth to be among the victim class reject the premise, are they to be condemned, or celebrated as role models of how to overcome the powerlessness of permanent victim status? If those ascribed the status of dominance treats members of the purportedly disenfranchised members of society as equals and each side responds in mutual respect, isn’t that the optimal outcome?

5) Is there a point at which true equality is achieved and what are the objective standards for measuring and determining when we have finally arrived? Who gets to judge?

6) If members of the “oppressed” class are given power and authority over those presumed to have dominance as a birthright, does this negate the presumed labels? Does this relationship make them equals or invert victim groups? Again, who decides and what measures are to be applied?

7) If decades-long attempts to over-correct in order to bring about equity has failed – or even been exacerbated according to most activists – doesn’t this suggest their plan is a failure and their efforts should be reconsidered if not actively thwarted?

8) When you need to rely on censorship, preferential treatment, speech codes, compliance training, hate speech laws, safe spaces, charges of microaggressions, and various other tools to manage the fragile emotional state of a segment of society, does this suggest that they are being strengthened or weakened by these strategies?

9) Is the objective to achieve tolerance for one another, or is the demand that a worldview linked to group identity be endorsed? When compelling others to accept premises that many know or deem to be false, is self-deception and feeding a lie a healthy thing for a society to do?

Now to the top tiers of privilege.

8) BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKS, BIG MEDIA, AND BIG PHARMA:

While each distinct institution carries their unique forms of advantage, these groups have largely been working in tandem or benefiting in similar ways, making these seeming disparities as little more than distinctions without a difference.

Evidence in support of their preferred status long preexisted the so-called pandemic, but this period has both expedited and exposed how this sausage is made even though we still only have a taste of layers that we are likely never to see.

Unlike those of us that lack the status and power of these institutions, they are deemed to be “too big to fail” and manage to receive welfare in the form of taxpayer funded bail-outs, not only despite, but often due to their failures and mismanagement. Of course, during the “pandemic,” we were told that certain people and businesses were non-essential while others could carry on unimpeded. In every case, those granted the right to remain open were all the largest and most lucrative. This created a double whammy where people’s purchasing power and economic liquidity was being deliberately harmed while the mega-businesses were guaranteed a steady stream of customers with no choice but to buy from them.

Bank bail-outs are becoming the new norm as economic disaster continues to close in. Again, the smaller banks are being gulped up and the options are increasingly limited for customers. Banks can demand to know the reason for removing significant amounts of our own money and can decline to grant a withdrawal request or debank us. Incidentally, the decisions from banks and even payment services have refused to work with those with unapproved political views. This trend only affects those of a specific political worldview and I’ll leave it with you to guess which one.

Banks willingly froze the accounts of those who supported the Ottawa protests – thus, making clear that there activism based on promoting freedom and choice is no longer financially viable and can garner disfavoured status. Yes, in a time where denouncing discrimination is championed as the highest good, the activists for the cause of equity are AWOL when a genuine example of blatant discrimination is taking place. This is because we all know that Tolerance Boulevard is a one way street.

The definition of media has transformed profoundly in the last several decades. The primary sources of “news” and information of the past one or two generations have lost influence while other spheres have increased substantially. This, however only offers the veneer of diversity of views and opinions and, while this mini documentary addresses the capture and manipulation across various institutions, it certainly explains why there is so little diversity in terms of what stories are shared, which are censored or limited, and the assumptions and bias inherent in the reporting and analysis of events. 

Social media has become the most powerful and omnipresent voice because of how it can direct what may and may not be seen or expressed. They do this curating all while claiming to be merely a neutral repository for information as they wear out their technological equivalency for the editorial pen. They claim the right to define truth and reality, not based on any evidentiary standard, but subject to the approved political narrative that happens to align ideologically with those in charge and the vast majority of their hires. Everyone knows their application of “fact checking” is a façade used to manufacture a consensus view on every story and to hide or invent scandals based on who the target may be.

I’m sure most of you are fully aware of the boundless authority and privilege enjoyed by big pharma. They have lucrative profits from the fact that government hands them our money and impose mandates that ensure that billions of people use their product. Working hand in iron fist with government, the public was coerced and mandated to take their experimental concoction while they were shielded from criminal liability for any harm and there were joint efforts by aforementioned institutions to hide the data that demonstrated the damage to citizens. Much more can be said, but I have addressed this ad nauseam in previous articles.

9) GOVERNMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE:

Here, I will argue that all the privileged that I have mentioned thus far are dwarfed by the privilege enjoyed uniquely by this cabal of power brokers.

Each of these points have been formerly addressed in previous posts in detail and, for the sake of brevity, will be simply itemized here. Government and their administrative state entities have:

– Claimed the authority to define and impose moral laws through indoctrination and legal sanctions

– Asserted their right to define reality by making themselves the arbiters of truth and acceptable opinion; ultimately positioning themselves as the highest unimpeachable standard for fact-checking

– Set and impose their own standards regarding our national identity

– Arbitrarily take the earnings of taxpayers to direct toward their own priorities regardless of the wishes and values of the citizens

– Hand-pick those granted presumptive authority to set policies, agendas, and create narratives that the public is enlisted to adopt

– Control the police and military whom they can deploy to enforce or ignore any citizen or act they wish to in ways that benefit their self-interest

– Select judges and other empowered positions that will disproportionately crush their ideological enemies and give a pass to themselves and their allies

– Surveil the population without their permission or knowledge as a means of control

– Excuse themselves from any law or regulation they impose on the citizenry by putting themselves above the law and denying public accountability

– Set curricula for schools that will train children to become aligned with the worldview they want to project onto them and even make them social activists to stand against the interests and values of their parents

– Control the media through bribery from taxpayer funds and unparalleled powers to censor stories, facts, and perspectives they want ignored while generating self-serving narratives

– Vote themselves raises regardless of their performance or the dire economic circumstances of the public

– Freeze access to earnings from citizens if they choose to direct their money to matters of which they disapprove

– Coerce the population to behave in ways that violate their consciences and even compel or censor speech and opinions that are contrary to their whims

– Set and enforce acceptable standards for faith communities to establish what principles they must uphold or denounce with penalties for non-compliance

– Punitively regulate businesses and institutions to through selective enforcement or bailouts that reward friends and hinder enemies

This is just a short-list intended to highlight the seemingly limitless reach of these ruling authorities. To paraphrase, update, and secularize the words of Abraham Kuyper: There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which the state, which is sovereign over all, does not declare, ‘Mine’. Every institution has come under the authority of the state. This fraud has been managed based on manipulation and sleight of hand that has eluded even God’s elect by exploiting our ignorance of scripture and spouting outright lies from the mouth of Satan that we were warned to guard against. In summary, we were finessed to to accede to the premise that to hold moral standards is to impose a theocracy; then the government inverted moral duties and told the Christian to shut up and stay out of politics.

Though the system was created under the premise that the state were our employees, they have turned civilization into their fiefdom and cast the public as their slaves. If you were to look up what are the characteristics that define an abusive spousal relationship, you would see every aspect played out in how government treats us. In most cases, the abuse is through control of our movements, finances, and emotional abuse that for many has resulted in an unhealthy co-dependence. Similarly, many fall for the promise that they have changed and accept that we are responsible for our abuse. If we only obey and not make them angry, they will take care of us.

It should be noted that this last demographic even sets the agenda for the professional grievance class in the previous categories. For example, the feminist black lesbian student athlete may achieve preferential and unearned acceptance into Harvard on a full scholarship, but she needs to be okay with the bearded person of undefined gender entering her change room. Also, should the non-binary vegan furry decide they want to make a whimsical cartoon depicting the “prophet,” Mohammed – peace be upon him and the horse he rode in on – they can expect a fulsome eulogy in defense of your beheading.

Well, dear reader, the top prize goes to a classification of people that has yet to be mentioned.

And the winner is…the born again Christian.

I can hear the cacophony of social justice warriors wringing their hands in celebration that finally, a professing Bible-believing follower of Christ is affirming what they’ve been saying all along. To this I say, don’t be so quick to gloat. There are several provisos to be found in the fine print accompanying this conclusion.

First of all, note that I do not attach the male qualifier label to the identity of Christian. This is because Christian privilege is not contingent on one’s sex, racial identity, or any other standard. The privilege is extended to all who have accepted the gracious gift of salvation extended to all of Christ’s image bearers. There are also not degrees of privilege that are unique to any subcategory of race, socioeconomic status, country of origin, etc.

On the other hand, many who claim to be Christians do not make the cut as being among the truly advantaged. While no human is in a position to judge who exists inside or outside of God’s favour, many will garner accolades from these advantaged victim groups that will not enjoy the privilege of a saving relationship with Christ. There will be a sorting of sheep and goats to come and, as scripture tells us, many will be surprised to see that they didn’t make the cut.

Doubtless, the greatest divide between the grievance class of self-described victims and experts is that the privilege distinct to the Christian is an inversion of the brand that they peddle. Christian privilege is acquired through withstanding adversity, accepting that there will be no justice in this life, showing self-restraint, putting others first, loving the unlovable, forgiving those who mistreat us, acknowledging our unworthiness, suffering slander, defamation, and various forms of persecution. The maltreatment that was visited upon genuine victims of an earlier time that their over-correction is purported to remedy does not align with Christian privilege. The truly privileged person is not defined by their experiences, but by their relationship with their Saviour despite their situation.

This is not even a secret to them. After all, if they didn’t believe they were justifying preferential treatment through education, social justice, critical theory, pride month, affirmative action, hiring quotas, and the tools of censorship and compelled speech – to name a few – then their activism would, of necessity, be an attempt to keep their allies down. If Christians enjoyed the level of advocacy reserved for their “victimized” groups and received the condemnation for wrongthink that is unique to the Christian and conservative, they would be outraged by such injustice.

Based on earthy principles, the unbeliever who remonstrates against the devout Christian while advancing the cause of their own tribe is bound to find little opposition and open embrace from within the culture. In an article I wrote some years ago for Faith Beyond Belief titled, “A Call for Secular Rights“, I detailed what the it would truly look like if Christianity enjoyed the benefits that are extended to the unbelieving left. Note that this was written 4 years ago and the march of imposed godlessness has enjoyed a bounty that did not yet exist at the time.

As a refresher, the definition of privilege is “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favour; especially such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position of office.” The professional grievance-mongers are doing all they can to put their desires first and reshape the world in their image to ease the difficulties of this life. They justify mistreating those they see as enemies because they feel morally superior and deserving of their elevated stature.

The Christian position is complimentary because we are prepared to be the counterweights for those seeking to exert their privilege now. The irony is that even when the deck is currently stacked in their favour, they are not satisfied and become fixated on the pea buried under the mattresses they stack up in the pursuit of comfort. It will only be after this life when they will realize that they failed to find pleasure in the here and now while facing the eternal regret of a life committed to the pursuit of temporal indulgences.

Privilege, according to the Christian model, means suffering without complaint for the one who willingly suffered on our behalf. It comes from recognising our identity is not bound by biology or status in the eyes of others, but from acknowledging who we in the eyes of our creator.