Friday, September 20, 2013

Peak Oppression - Of Who?

Originally published at woodpilereport.com 

Adult white males, a small part of the population, have more work than they can possibly handle oppressing the rest of the country. In the remote past they only had to enforce behavioral norms and workplace productivity to fulfill their "Poor, Minorities Hit Hardest" obligations. It took maybe a few hours a year because voluntary compliance was nearly universal. But even then there was barely enough time left to keep radicals and banksters from taking over the country. Those times are long gone, yet the larger society acts as if oppression was an internship with a waiting list.

Things went from manageable to critical with the explosive growth of victims groups—gays, illegal aliens, militant women, the deaf, blind, homeless, limousineless and more. Now any disaffected gaggle can designate themselves a victim group and demand any remedy, unimpeded by any accepted standards, all with no thought of how to ensure these newly created victims get oppressed effectively and equally, as the law demands.

Additionally, long-established victims groups are bifurcating and sub-specializing as if the nation's supply of white male oppressors were infinite. For instance, there are two separate outfits going by the name Black Panthers. Hard pressed victimizers are being asked to provide a critically scarce resource to clients who freely indulge in wasteful duplication. The number of oppressors can't be multiplied so cavalierly.

More and more oppressors are complaining that, even with today's low standards, they wouldn't have time to do much else should they fully attend to their obligations. They talk of compressed schedules or rationing or odd-even day victimizing to even minimally satisfy the demand.

Some have suggested victims groups help shoulder the load by taking on some part of the oppressing themselves. For instance, leftist unions could plausibly oppress the illegal aliens for accepting under-the-table wages, and they in turn could oppress the unions with assaults on organizers. If mutual victimization was done right, both groups would see a legitimate increase in outrage with not much effort.

Oppressors also claim the quality of oppression could be raised in this way, although none see any realistic hope of bringing back the 'gold standard' features of old that served traditional clients so admirably. Personalized confrontations have gone the way of doctor's house calls for instance, aside from a few YouTube hobbyists and internet forum trolls.

Yet even today, some volunteers will occasionally provide in-person oppression. They say the heartfelt appreciation by the chronically underserved is payment in itself but they caution arrangements must be made in advance and no more than pro forma oppression should be expected. 'Terms of art' submitted in advance are always welcome, apprentice oppressors often don't know retro politics well enough to get the nuances right.

Some truly extravagant forms of oppression, like mass rallies with a cross-burning or big city marches, haven't been available for decades. It's a keenly felt need that isn't being truly met with old photos and voice overs. Conscientious oppressors tried for a while to fill in with rumors and gaudy stories but, aside from continuing support from the SPLC, the ruse has been mostly exposed and abandoned.

While the notion of White Privilege—being oppressed by the mere fact somebody else is white—went a long way to reduce the workload, some warn the larger effort could collapse outright if more efficiencies aren't introduced. They point to bogus hate crimes as evidence of the absence of the genuine article, but the "a noose and a dream" approach hasn't worked in a very long time. It's a sad reminder Americans expect service on a higher level than what we're getting.

Others suggest that prospective victims groups meet stricter standards and be granted scarce oppression resources only after acceptance by a "gatekeepers" committee made up of white males and their long term, trusted clients.

Supporters of the gatekeepers idea say standardized nomenclature alone would yield significant benefits. As it is, oppressors must dilute their limited capacity by administering to esoteric distinctions. For instance, the Hispanic, Mestizo and Latino identities could adopt a common designation and immediately benefit from more concentrated oppression. What they'd lose in specificity would be compensated for by a welcome increase in intensity.

Overextended oppressors point to other opportunities to help them meet their obligations. For instance, transvestite and sex-change organizations are differentiated mainly by their degree of commitment to the underlying notion. While it's true they represent somewhat different constituencies, in practical terms their expectations overlap and could be better met with some consolidation in nomenclature.

In society as in nature, predators are more endangered than their prey. With so much of our economy depending on the dwindling supply of white male oppressors—a smallish minority to begin with—the demand can't continue to expand without limit. Unless we see good faith cooperation and more realistic expectations, the economic engine called oppression can only continue to sputter. Credible oppression already approaches the vanishing point. We may see the day when we're a nation peopled entirely by victims, and the laughing stock of the world.