Hijacking latest comment to repost the deleted comment from nowimjustcurious:
Observation: TheMotte is considerably more rightwing than it was on Reddit.
A couple of three recent comments serve as a demonstration.
Several days ago, I wrote a post summarising an essay in a leading white nationalist magazine. Replies were relatively diverse, but the net upvotes tell the story of which way TheMotte leans ideologically. To wit, the most upvoted comments argue that "Americans" should not include non-white people, and that desegregation was a mistake, and that you shouldn't let black people watch your children (really?).
Likewise, in an attempt to play devil's advocate, I made a recent comment about the "suffering" of white people in response to the HBD post from @PresterJohnsHerald. It's currently sitting at 10 upvotes, and even more interestingly, there is only one reply! I anticipated there would be a lot of rebuttals, like the fact that crime is overwhelmingly interracial, that far more black and white people get along than hurt one another, that your chance of dying from a homicide is statistically negligible, and that the solution obviously can't be segregation. Conversely, replies suggesting that the history of slavery and Jim Crow might have something to do with black underperformance are sitting below zero votes.
I guess what I'm asking is: where the liberals at? Or alternatively, why has the proportion of racists increased dramatically since moving off Reddit?
Hijacking latest comment to repost the deleted comment from nowimjustcurious:
In my continuing profile of disagreements among the alt-right, I'd like to summarise two competing viewpoints on a important topic to the online right: the definition and feasibility of "ethnonationalism".
In Is Ethnonationalism Compatible with Genetic Interests in Practice?, Asier Abadora argues that ethnonationalism is largely a doomed project because it will never obtain enough popular support, that "white" people in the West, and particularly the US, are too culturally distinct to form a cohesive polity, and that ethnonationalism amounts to "cultural Marxism".
In contrast, Greg Johnson argues that ethnonationalism is both necessary and politically attainable. First, he takes issue with the Abadora's claim that ethnicity cannot be defined:
I don’t know how to define Irishness, Basqueness, or Norwegianness. I doubt that the natives do, either. But we all know more than we can say. I can’t define “blue,” but I know it when I see it. I can’t define “cabbage,” but I never confuse it with lettuce. The idea that you don’t know something, or that things don’t even exist, if you can’t define them is an old sophism. In this context, it is more often used by the Left. “What do you mean by ‘English’? Angles, Saxons, Jutes?” The nice thing about sovereignty is that peoples get to define themselves.
Next, Johnson spells out his criteria for his favoured brand of ethnonationalism, White Nationalism. This criteria is based on his belief that all "European" people have a right to their own sovereign ethnostates.
He first explains the nature of this "right":
First, your rights are not obligations. A right is simply an option that you can choose to exercise or not. The obligation pertains to others, who are obliged to get out of your way. The right to have a homeland is not, therefore, an obligation to have one. Some peoples may be content within multiethnic states. If they are, they are not obliged to change anything. However, if they aren’t happy — if they believe that independence is necessary for them to maintain their identity and way of life — then they have the right to exit and create their own homeland, and everybody else is obligated to get out of their way.
Second, Johnson argues that "the most natural locus of sovereignty is an ethnic group, which is defined by shared blood, history, language, and culture" because greater diversity means greater disorder and increased conflict. He provides an analogy: "Any traveler knows how stressful it is to be in a country where you do not speak the language. Imagine living like that all the time. That’s life in a multiethnic society."
Third, because the right to self-determination is a obviously true, and because other ethnic groups around the world pursue their ethnic interests all the time, whites/Europeans should be allowed to do the same.
Lastly, Johnson argues that white racial solidarity "needs to supervene upon more particular white ethnic nationalisms."
But why "white racial solidarity" rather than pursuing ethnic interests at the country level? Johnson rounds up his essay with this explanation:
Why speak of “white” nationalism at all? Why not speak only of more particular ethnic nationalisms? Because that leaves something out. First, all European peoples share a common racial descent, and with kinship comes responsibilities. White peoples should give preferences to one another over non-whites. Second, all European peoples face the same threats to our survival — low fertility, miscegenation, replacement migration — thus we should work together whenever possible to solve these problems. Third, one of the principal threats to white genetic interests is “civic” nationalism: the idea that non-whites can become members of white nations simply by being granted citizenship. But whiteness is a necessary condition of belonging to any European people. Not all white people are Irish, but all Irish people are white. Fourth, assimilation is a real thing, although it is rare and difficult and should only be allowed in small numbers. Race sets the outermost boundaries of assimilation. An Irishman can become an American, but a Nigerian simply can’t. Finally, we need to talk about “white” nationalism just because whites are being attacked as whites by our enemies, not as Germans or Swedes or Poles. Of course none of us are merely white. We all belong to particular ethnic groups. But over and above that, we are also white, and White Nationalism does justice to that.
There is more to essay, but this is probably enough for now.
AmorFati
10mo ago
I can only speculate as to who got me banned and why.
Why do you think you got banned?
AmorFati
10mo ago
Meta-question: why is comment deletion allowed on this forum? And why are users who continually abuse this functionality not warned and then banned? In the most charitable case this behavior is extremely annoying and disrupts on-going discussions and makes historical discussions hard to follow.
@thenether appears to delete their comments regularly... looking at their profile I can't see any comments at all...?
With the help of archive.is, this is the original top-level post of @thenether:
Building off the HBD post below, Bronze Age Pervert has another recent tweet on these matters. In his opinion, focusing on black "dysfunction" is misguided because the focus should be on Asians and Indians:
Focus on criminality, low IQ and similar, with special emphasis on supposed biological causes of Bantoids' dysfunction is a mistake. High IQ, low-crime "model minorities" will have a corrupting effect on America far beyond Bantoid problems, which are usually just social nuisance
Some of "HBD sphere" are people who fear blacks, or had bad experience being mugged or intimidated in urban setting. Feel entitled to an urban bubble for which, however, they've never fought; never been in fistfight. Then complain about IQ, biological tendency to crime, etc. Bantoids are a political nullity. In countries where form large % there are social problems, but it's just a social NUISANCE unless they are made props in others' political struggles.
But eg a judiciary that is significant % Han and paneer is a civilization-ending scenario
The corruption of meritocracy in America has less to do with Bantoids than with "model minority" "newcomers" from societies with high corruption, nepotism, sociopathic disregard fair play, and in some cases millennia-old traditions of cheating and gaming bureaucratic meritocracy
I'm not really seeing the argument here. The US has experienced a lot of Asian immigration and it doesn't seem like it's approaching anything that could be described as "civilization-ending". And are Eastern and Southern Europeans any less "corrupt" than Asians and Indians? Whenever I see this kind of thing I'm reminded of what was said about the Irish:
[The Irish] hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.
or the Italians or any other group that came to the US and is now completely assimilated. The least BAP could do is provide some evidence, but I've seen that's not very common in his writing. It's more about vibes and feelings.
AmorFati
10mo ago
Far Right HBD Civil War
Bronze Age Pervert recently xeeted on what he believes in the current infeasibility of HBD politically:
While for the sake of truth I think facts about racial disparities should be discussed, it’s not good at all politically. In fact it’s impossible in the present circumstances. Only a myth of race blindness is workable. You won’t convince some populations that they are inferior by birth and deserve their station in life. You won’t even convince “decent people” from high achieving populations of this. On the other hand discrimination to offset perceived past discrimination or natural inequalities is also felt to be wrong (although I think it would be relatively easy to convince modern populations to accept affirmative action to offset natural inequalities, which is another reason pushing this with a political intention is a big mistake). The only solution in short run is race blindness, stopping and reversing all racialization of politics and society. This isn’t my own preference by the way but a statement on fact. The “HBD position” is an impossibility politically and culturally today. Public hypocrisy is the only way out that will be accepted unless you are ready to go the Nietzsche and Gobineau route (and you are not).
This was controversial with numerous pundits amongst the different spheres of the Right: with Woods, Winegard, and Fuentes having opposing views.
I think the question of politically feasibility of HBD is a point of discussion, in addition to—perhaps more interestingly—the timing of the xeet by Bronze Age Pervert—wat means? Is HBD the path forward? In the chaos of the Isreal-Hamas war and the current anti-woke backlash, is the vitalist Right looking to make themselves more palatable?
The ban reason reads:
Did you really need the "...with a boner so hard that the fig leaf fell" part? This to me seems needlessly antagonistic... and in bad taste.
More options
Context Copy link