But there is an illogic to microaggression which is pointed to by Classical Values:
“…because once you understand the doctrine, you will realize that any expression of doubt over a microaggression — whether real or perceived — is itself a microaggression, just as taking issue with the concept of microaggression theory is of course a major microaggression.”The concept behind each declaration of microaggression is tautology, supported by diktat. It is also intellectually circular, being grounded in the opinion of the accuser. It cannot be grounded materially, because it is solely a moral position.
What this means is that each new microaggression is declared to be a First Principle, a universal Truth which is unquestionable. In addition, questioning either the specific offense or the factuality of the First Principle violates the First Principle and is a microagresssion. Finally, microaggressions are not physical universal principles, they are moral universal First Principles and therefore either committing or questioning them is a moral failure: a Sin.
So it can be plainly seen that the concept of microaggression is a religious tenet of serious consequence to the religion of Leftism.
Now let’s return to White Privilege. If one rejects his own heritage in order to placate a member of the Leftist Religion of Egalitarianism, he is rejecting reality. This is a logic failure. What is not understood is that the western heritage is not exclusively white, it is available to all, and has been transported around the world - to the extent that personal freedom can be tolerated in local venues.
There are several issues with this. First, this Leftist Moral religion can exist only in either free western cultures, or in dictatorships. Since the connection with dictatorship is obvious, or should be, let’s discuss the impact of this religion in free western-type cultures.
This Leftist Religion of Egalitarianism uses the rite of microaggression as a fear-based membership tool. One who is willing to reject his ancestry and its contributions to culture and human well-being is acceptable to the Cult of Leftist Religious Egalitarianism.
But one who insists on reality, as being based not in moral First Principles, but being based in epistemological and ontological First Principles, cannot be a member of the Church of Leftist Egalitarianism.
That’s where diktat comes in, of course. Such a person, being reality based, must not only be rejected from the Leftist Moral Compound, he must be destroyed. Why? Because he is evil. He does not genuflect to Leftist threats.
And that is the next logical failure: in a world with no Truth, no Lies, no Morals, the Leftist Cult of Moral Egalitarianism condemns its critics as morally unfit, moral outcasts, to be deprived of whatever influence they might have had, had they capitulated to the charges against them, and admitted their Sins by debasing themselves before their accusers. The use of moral testing in a world with no morals is self-contradictory.
Finally, should a person capitulate and become one of the Cult of Leftist Egalitarianism, he becomes totally free – free to lie, free sexually (think Clinton), free of all other pre-existing moral constraints, which are ancient artifacts of a lost culture.