BANNED USER: personal attacks
>Unban in 6d 08h 01m
Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Banned by: @Amadan
Nuanced opinions like Martyrmade are always appropriate. Conversely people slandering him should be subject to pressure against their speech, or outright restricting their rule violating behavior based on the setting it happens and people disagreeing him without trying to label it nazi apologia, or being angry, but happy for him to have his views, are welcome.
In general these idiotic taboos must be made themselves taboos. It must be taboo for people to be intolerant of deviations from Hitler maximally evil, Churchil, FDR, Stalin, did nothing wrong, and that WW2 was unavoidable. People enforcing them by trying to cancel others must face cancel culture and are greatly harmful to our culture.
I am in favor of just people in moderated discussions at least temporarilly banned from "fuck you", "nazi, or more sneaky ways to attack his character in that light. And in general there should be a norm in media and in society against this kind of reaction towards people exploring such issues.
We need to enforce a minimum level of respect towards people deviating from immoral demands for black and white maximalism. Rather than them being subject to excessive rhetorical reaction, or cancel culture.
Obviously Martyrmade is right that WW2 is used to promote warmongering todays, far left agenda, and an anti right wing and anti european prejudice.
In general, the maximalist narrative for black american slavery, WW2 narratives, is part of a general black vs white, erroneous maximalist narrative. The very idea that it is sacred for people to have only one excessive view, is ridiculous, and part of weaponized history. It is directly related to the cultural far left excesses of today.
The antifa fanatics are damaging our societies while people like Martyrmade are trying to fix those problems and counter their damage, even with his own culpability of errors.
A synthesis of views from debate between people like Martyrmade and people who share his preference against both nazism and antifa types, who have some disagreements on areas he might get wrong, would be a way for a productive way this issue to be handled, that includes an opposite side.
The "fuck you nazi apologist" types (both saying it overly or sufficiently pushing in that direction with more polite language) have nothing of value to say and we would be better off if they stayed silent. And the people who talk about how they love the german deaths in dresden, and in general all the suffering of Germans, support Palestinian, Iranian, Russians today to die, supported Hiroshima bombings, supported the death of southerners in USA and for more of them to have died in the 19th century, support the destruction of right wingers, support authoritarian imprisonment of both them and of non self hating Europeans, support the extinction of Europeans, have a very monstrous ideology, and these kind of people we genuinely shouldn't allow them to use WW2, slavery, holocaust, colonialism, as weapons. They represent an evil, which actually shares part of what has been pathological among nazis in the way nazis are presented. In my own view there is a propaganda and fog of war but the nazis did do sufficient atrocities, and acted in a sufficiently murderous imperialist manner against other nations to deserve a negative reputation.
Even though other bad guys factions have used them in their propaganda overly, as a means of justifying their own immoral agenda. Still, as far as Europeans are concerned, the antifa faction is more hostile and destructive to it than the Nazis were. And more justifiable to suppress it than neonazis a million times over, considering the damage it is doing and its destructive nature and ideology.
Of course, I don't think our culture would be great if instead of one set of immoral reaction that is today too pervasive, the dominant narrative was a different one, and it was of Hitler fanboys. The antifa types genuinely have always been bad guys, including in the time the nazis were active, both the antifa far leftists and nazis held immoral ideologies. There is a better alternative to both and Martyrmade is part of that better alternative.
Kudos to Martyrmade/Darryl Cooper for his courage. Although I disagree with him on some aspects. I think it is true that Churchil wanted the war, and pushed for it, I am not sure I buy the willingness of Hitler to take back conquests for peace after the invasion of Poland if I got my timing right. x So on some of his points he might have overreached while promoting valid points that people don't want to hear elsewhere. But in any case, I don't really care about such details, the WW2 taboo and the antifa narrative is the problem. In general Martyrmade is pushing in the right direction and doing so while knowing he will get slander thrown at him. His courage and willingness to do this is praiseworthy. The world needs more courageous and sensible people like Darryl. He is a good man.
As for the antifa ideology, this is an ideology which justifies by distorting and enforcing an one sided narrative of history a lot of evil and unreasonable stuff, including the persecution of dissenters from that. One of the most notorious, well in addition the current program of destroying and persecuting the native people of Europe, includes what this movement did in previous decades. Putting German children in the homes of pedophiles while claiming that not doing so would lead to a new holocaust.
This applies to slavery of blacks as well. In the past like in WW2 until more recently, there was more debate. But the people claiming slavery of American blacks was the worst type of slavery ever succeeded in cancelling people with more nuanced views. Helen Andrews argued that this was an erroneous narrative, but in general it is in service of the woke progressive stack agenda. And part and parcel of various frauds that it is less taboo to question, that are now encouraged, that Andrews did expose such as the lies on the Congo, or the Indian mass graves hoax in Canada. For if maximalist narratives are unquestionable, it will encourage as it has other blood libel accusations that must be unquestionable.
In conclusion, respecting dissenters and even favoring nuanced peoples while disrespecting maximalist fanatics is a good thing. We genuinely actually need to gatekeep against the personalities whose reaction is to be more hateful towards southern people today over 19th century grievances, or Germans, or whoever, than many people that lived the events nearer that times had more timid reaction. The idea that maximalism serves stop a genuine neoconfederate, neonazi threat, is preposterous. It serves an evil antifa faction agenda and a foreign nationalist agenda, and of hatred against groups I mentioned and of a supremacist agenda that weaponizes a black and white narrative to promote a caste system.
People need to be deradicalized and to get over their immoral grievances. I wonder if in another 80 years, people will be weaponizing WW2, slavery, colonialism, the holocaust the same. Hopefully we manage to put an end to it and move on. There were never an ideal level of discourse, with antifa type organizations like ADL active and influential but discussion was actually more open on several of these issues in the past and it is in near decades that the maximalist antifa types have managed to become more dominant and to pass their hate speech laws and enforce their cancel culture, to the world's detriment. And especially to the detriment of the people under such regimes. Culture can change to a healthier level again by removing hate speech laws, promoting the right voices, instead of cancelling them, while disrespecting the antifa ideologues.
Rather than goverment vs corporations it is more about governments and companies who align agenda wise, although granted part of this process includes the goverment requesting censoring, or puttings its own people in charge.
I see it as a broader network/faction.
We are entering an increasing phase of authoritarianism. The Democrats certainly and probably several republicans, possibly even a larger share of republicans than in general, on the issue of speech critical of Jews, are after European style decimation of freedom of speech.
Moreover, the existence of centralized platforms, including platforms like this very forum where someone can decide to censor or ban people at will, it self represents a power grab against freedom of speech in a way. There is also the other side, where it also allows more communication. But meat space did have some less constraints.
I believe there is a direct relationship with moderators banning people and this being celebrated and with governments imprisoning people for hate speech.
So I see it as a struggle between figures like Musk, Durov, Torba, and a totalitarian far left faction. With someone like Musk possibly somewhat compromising with them in some areas and opposing them in others.
Another facet of this is technology which helps enable centralization of power, as also seen with A.I. models being different variations of super woke which makes it easier to take peoples freedom's away. Although if the technology was utilized differently, it could have had different effects. But the possibility of technology being used to centralize and create a totalitarian system is there and it is taken advantage of. It means we are facing a techno-totalitarian threat that is unprecedented.
Like the faction against dissent includes people in goverment and in corporations, those in favor of existence of dissenting platforms should include people both outside the goverment, but also people who ought to take influence within governance, as either legislature or executives. That way, if Brazil wants to get rid of X, but Z other country and politicians like Musk, then that raises the pressure against Brazil.
You can oppose this also from pro freedom of speech grounds without being a freedom of speech absolutist.
Personally I find the issue incoherent but I find coherent to have a situation with more vs less freedom of speech but you do need to suppress some organized pollitical comisar factions. For example, eastern european countries post communism that blacklisted communists, are freer countries than western countries today, or their own communist past.
How do you protect freedom of speech absolutism if you allow people whose idea is to suppress all who go against the globohomo "our democracy" faction.
Or take the Jewish supremacist authoritarian faction. These people use their powerful companies and organisations, and donations and plausible epstein type blackmail rings to get their way. Plus, civil rights law and the idea of antisemitism. Should the ADL and Disney have the freedom to coordinate to oppose freedom? What about the influence of people speaking advocating for censoring ideas that offend the "Jews, blacks, women" are wonderful effect? Is AIPAC donation efforts something that should be suppressed? What about journalists citing the ADL to character assassinate people? Now, obviously they utilize censorship constantly, and freedom of speech absolutism is something they oppose. But also they are a faction which there is a legitimate both pro freedom and pro the rights of the groups they have it out against, and pro truth interest in suppressing.
How do you have freedom by not taking away the freedom of political comisars? How do you avoid not losing against more ruthless factions that don't care for a universal freedom of speech and want to censor your group, and allow maximum freedom for theirs?
And is freedom of speech absolutism extending to the kind of people you select to run the pro freedom of speech institutions?
Or is their desire to act otherwise subject to restriction there, and institutions should be run by people willing to abide by certain rules and following a certain perspective? And absolutism would then be for the platforms? That would make more sense. But you do have restrictions based on ideology somewhere, even if not on the platform. Or take judges, to have freedom of speech absolutism you would need judges with your preferences to be selected and judges against freedom of speech (who might express such views) be restricted.
Another issue that ought to be considered is people abandoning their legitimate interests and supporting immoral and unreasonable and even lies, or not making legitimate negative critiques due to fear of coordinated slander and reputation destruction. That is being defamed. People being afraid to speak, that is to say. To be fair, "cancel culture" can include the claim of free de-association in an one sided manner. Although there is also a part of it that is about pressure and fear of losing ones job. I am not sure freedom of speech absolutism works and you have a better system, of people not being afraid if people are restrained from defaming others over nonsense. Although I am a freedom of speech absolutist when it comes to people who are telling a plausibly necessary truth and are whistleblowing.
I am for maximum freedom for people like Gareth Jones and prefer that people like Walter Duranty were fired for spreading lies. And in his time, Gareth Jones was outnumbered because he was attacked by the communists, and friendly travelers in the American establishment while the apologist for the Soviet genocides Walter Duranty won a pulitzer. People at the time lacked the nerve to share Gareth Jones truthtelling in the face of such tactics.
The problem of people who are cowardly in the face of other people using their freedom of speech to label them, as a means of shutting them up, is not something I have seen adequately addressed, by people talking about freedom of speech absolutism. Although, perhaps with less consequences for those whose speech goes against such organized groups, there might be more courage. In general, I think we need a more sophisticated model than freedom of speech absolutism that distinguishes between courageous truth telling and attempts to suppress the truth. While I acknowledge outright censorship is a key part of this, but an important component is drowning good speech, with delegitimizing it on frivolous grounds, lies, fallacies, denials, misdirections and character assassinations. Plus, using their freedom to organize and advocate for cancel culture, and directly threaten people to go along with it, or else.
I don't disagree that we should look at how things would be applied at the time. And we shouldn't abandon being tactical in that case. So of course, I don't suggest giving more power to people who would abuse it. And it is true that the current elites anywhere, do abuse it in the direction you say. In general the freedom to say unpopular truths must include some possibility of getting things wrong.
But in an ideal sense, we would be better off if journalism and the media took defamation seriously, not in their two tier hypocritical pretense way that it would be used to enforce defamation they like, and silence accurate and exaggerations they dislike. A media that adhered to actual principles in a manner that they told the truth 100% is an impossibility, but something better than today is a possibility. And it would require changing the kind of people running the media and enforcing to them standards.
But sure part of this, can be more freedom of speech and less shutting them down, or in fact arresting, those promoting a different narrative outside of the bubble of the media that promote the same narrative, and often controlled by the same people.
Belisarius
.
2mo ago
There is definetly a chronic problem of anti white and really anti all the groups progressive dislike.
Right wingers shining a light on genuine problems suffer from actual censorship. There isn't an equivalence.
Conversely, liberals promoting completely false pictures about black epidemic of being falsely killed by polcie believe in false facts.
Lets just say for any right wing exaggeration believed or suppressed, much more truth is suppressed by censorship, or dishonestly pretending it is BS, or extremism. While conversely, progressive false narratives are dominant.
We would definitely benefit by starting to understand real problems and stop hiding facts. IIRC there were leaks about the trans shooter who did it motivated by the pervasive antiwhite, antichristian, narrative.
The people who censor rightists talking about genuine problems like say black crime, or any other of the taboo topics, are contributing to creating a distorted narrative that leads to a far left extreme result. What we need is to remove from positions of power people who suppress such issue, and promote false narratives, over those who would promote the truth.
Belisarius
.
2mo ago
Academia has too much fraudsters it self. What we need is less people like that anywhere, especially in important fields while still be wise to their tricks. So maybe a few reformed ones to catch the unreformed ones.
The main two issues with women politically are:
A) Feminism. Enough women as a block converge politically and feel entitled to preferential treatment. Additionally, they prioritise careerism over motherhood, and sympathize with the general liberal and progressive framework. Women like other demographics, including non female liberals, have become entitled and dogmatic.
I believe it isn't all in biology but there is an effect directly related to the way liberals (and supposed right wingers who in practice compromised with progressive liberalism) pander to a group and then that group becoming receptive of this pandering. That ideology and way it frames things about how "we women" (and blacks, Jews, etc) need to fight for women rights and against misogyny, creates a radicalized entited mentality. But this isn't just a woman problem, but also a problem of other identities pandered, and of the ideologues who buy into this. These people are never going to compromise, but deny and deflect the unreasonable privilidges and society destroying aspects of the dogma, and play up the weakman/strawman of any alternatives.
It is a good thing to be hostile to people biased in a feminist and anti male direction.
An aspect of this is going to be persecution of dissent, which in Britain might include imprisoning people for non feminist speech.
What we need on such issues is to abandon these dogmas and seek for workable complimentary and wise ways to sort relations between groups. Which is impossible to do under the liberal paradigm.
And also prosecution for treason totalitarian progressive extremists in power (which includes powerful Non Govermant Organizations who play a role in this) imprisoning, or generally cancelling people for not sharing this dogma, and suppressing this faction in general, in favor of what I mentioned.
People trying to solve the problems that come from the general questions and from the feminist and general progressive supremacist paradigm specifically in both inter group relations, and in a specific society. Like birth rates, or dating rate, or whether the system works well for families, or whether it is unfair towards men and/or women.
Suffice to say people like Dread Jim represent the opposite extreme in my book. So I am not suggesting that female interests are treated as of no consideration. Just not prioritized above male interests and above common good, like what kind of societal arrangement leads to successful families and strong societies, nations, even stable international order and additionally, no reason to treat female interests and the way they are framed in the feminist perspective where careerism, abortion, are prioritized.
All this requires a break from liberal/progressive orthodoxy and even from those who claim to be in opposition of it, but actually are dogmatists for it. Authoritarianism, fanaticism, support of unreasonable and false aspects and unwillingness of compromise are the pervasive aspects of not a few kids of college, but of a broad liberal faction and of feminists in general.
B) What I call "Gullible Conformism". Women are more willing to unquestionably buy into unreasonable politics that are framed under the "I am a nice person" perspective. There is also the fact that women know less facts than men as shown in various studies.
To blame only women voters will neglect the influence of a network of activists who captured power in media, corporations, goverment, control powerful activist NGOs. We now have a female voter problem too, but historically the timing was more of these types of elites coordinating first and trying to influence women. Without them, the issue with women would had been lesser. And to be fair, women had played a role in this by taking part in the feminist movement.
But in the current situation it does exist. However with different ideology being promoted a decent % of women would distance themselves from feminism.
In regards to voting, I have entertained the idea of limiting the vote to people who pass a test that examines both their knowledge and capability to prioritize the common good. Obviously if implemented today in countries run by the far left, it would result in banning all non far leftists from voting. But in an ideal way, it would mean selecting people who understand key facts, and share some key important moral principles and demonstrate wisdom.
Which isn't apolitical but goes directly against cultural marxism/ modern far left, which is mainstream liberalism. For example there would be a question about whether "Do our people have a right to continue existing by restricting the right of foreigners to immigrate and settle on our lands, or we shouldn't have that right, because it should be considered racist and prioritised above it". Same in regards to feminism and affirmative action were the concept of excessive women rights should be put under consideration with the common good. Include some edgier questions that put in the recepient the threat of being thought as not being nice, or associating with extreme movement, but the correct position would be to do just that.
Another issue that goes beyond voting, is that a democratic regime as any textbook claims, should be about more things than majority decides. The far left conveniently either supports or tolerates far left extremism, and opposes people opposing it, but either opposes or tolerates opposing as unconstitutional the implementation of even reasonable politics which they consider to go against the red lines of the left, and associate with far right extremism.
People implementing the agenda is to disenfranchise, and treat as second class citizens or vilify, the groups progressive dislike, should be treated as people engaging in illegal and unconstitutional activity. And all organisations of this agenda should be banned. People who have done this, should be prosecuted for the crime of stripping groups from their rights, and in various cases for treason.
For example, if leftist ideologues in the police, goverment, start discriminating against the native people, you can and should imprison them. Or if they imprison people for not real crimes. There needs to be an overton window that closes and doesn't tolerate agendas that is sufficiently far to the left, including the cultural left.
Ideally, countries should not be run by oikophobes, who act as foreign occupation goverment in their mistreatment of their native people and their disallowance of existence as a community. Amd neither by extreme nationalists, not in the way the liberal/far left/"conservatives" who compromise with it define it, but those who are acting in a very parasitical and destructive manner to other nations. Same applies to other identity politics.
So the solution to this is to treat mainstream liberal ideology as an illegitimate extreme ideology, and try to promote something both more moderate, and therefore more conservative, and directly seek to solve social problems that will remain denied, treated as conspiracies, or treated as non problems, under the liberal dogma. Obviously if you aren't sufficiently conservative you can never be a moderate.
While simultaneously, pressuring groups like women to not be feminist, and stop putting women above men, in addition to promoting this ideology in the broader society. The ideology that progressive supremacy is an extreme destructive ideology, is the way forward to stop both the problems caused of it, but also the problem it cause of inter group conflict by stirring an entitled tribalist hateful attitute from pandered groups, and from people who become extreme tribalists for groups that aren't their own, and disrespectful of legitimate rights of other groups.
Of course, another problem of this ideology that we would benefit when it is suppressed, and it appears in this discussion by people indulging in this behavior, is the huge levels of bulverism and vilification and reality denial. People on the right can't have legitimate problems and oppose things, but must be nazis, incels, and all sort of boogie labels whose grievances are wholly illegitimate. This behavior, not only very dangerously leads to tyranny, and allows lies to foster, and has been key element to some of worst atrocities by far leftists in 20th century, but makes it impossible to rationally examine any issue.
Frankly, even among those ideological groups on the right which I have differences and find too extreme (referring to groups that are large enough to have some influence), who are fewer than those who claim to be on the right and compromise with far left, I very rarely if ever find any of them who have mostly illegitimate grievances against the left and leftist outgroups. It is just ridiculous propaganda. The typical type who I would say go to far, has legitimate complaints about legitimately bad behavior against the left and tribal groups associated with the left, but what they want as an end point, goes too far in a cruel and sectarian tribalist direction for my taste. That's it really. The leftist propaganda of insane far right extremist is it self promoting an insanity, and doing it often strategically maliciously so that the right can be losers, by treating their whole grievances as illegitimate.
The underlying message being that to prove you are not incel/nazi/far right be self destructive and betray your causes for the lefts. People who buy into this, will compromise with a subservient position for men and other demographics, and a subservient relationship, promising to be more subservient towards the far left.
So yeah, this type of perspective being absent from our discourse, would allow us to actually implement better gender relations that under the feminist paradigm and the bullying tactics of go along or you are a misogynist incel red piller man rights activst blah blah.
I think an important point of deradicalizing society, and I would expect with the right people in charge of the media the majority to pass the tests I entertained as an idea, would be for people to develop an active thick skin against these manipulation tactics. To become wise to this movement. Where they and the magic words no longer work anymore, and where people turn against those who will implement such tactics.
Belisarius
.
2mo ago
I agree that Rov is dismissing a valid issue for bad reasons and it is fair to talk of PMC, but as far as I am aware the concept of the Managerial class has its origin in James Burnham's Managerial Revolution. Who is an individual who moved from being a Trotskyist to being a right winger. I believe he wasn't a Trotskyist by the time he wrote the Managerial Revolution but he wrote it at a point where it was just a few years after he broke from Trotskyism, and that intellectual legacy still shaped to an extend the way he analyzed things.
Mass migration as exists in Britain blatantly violates the rights of the native people, to national existence and self determination and leads to violence that is covered up and downplayed by the establishment, in addition to discrimination against the native Britons which is happening in terms of AA and in general transforming are lower caste. Especially where the issue has to do with ethnic group relations.
Britain is also an incredibly totalitarian police state were opponents of this are being arrested and were serious crime is prioritized over persecuting dissent.
At such, you are essentially supporting the eventual destruction of the British people and their current and increasing mistreatment and violation of their rights. That is a transformation into increasingly oppressed second class citzens, until they become a small minority, and under threat of even more radical parties acting worse, or no longer exist as a group.
Of course if rules of the multicultural Britain, about racism were enforced equally, the consequences of advancing such notions would be severe. But one sided application is part of those rule. But even if the absurdly draconian and one sided rules weren't enforced consistently and equally, there is a problem with that position and its influence and with the existence of a network with worldwide adherents whose agenda is to harm groups like the British. There is also a national security lens. Britain has a national security obligation to suppress the faction that promotes mass migration that is so enormously destructive and racist against Britain and the British people.
Outside of the interest of Britain in particular, there is a universal value and an international justice interest in supressing anti european extremism that denies native europeans their legitimate rights and supports their national destruction and transformation of their country into ones were until they are second class citizens with their historical homeland putting Muslims, Blacks, Jews and others above them. Although this interest isn't numerical, the way I see it, international institutions should be captured by people who don't think Europeans are exempt from the national rights that other group deserve. And then enforce a punishment against the networks promoting the opposite agenda, and of course not allow such people to rise through ranks of running things and remove this moral hazard. I would advocate as superior to a situation where it is worldwide group vs group limitless conflict, that we try to impose reasonable reciprical rules worldwide.
Part of this should of course include deportations of plenty of people who got paper making them fake X nation from cultural marxists who are hostile against their own nation (and timing also plays a role, with most mass migration being relatively recent), such as foreign supporters of mass migration, and affirmative action type politics who have been used for the crime of purposeful demographic displacement and replacement but not to deport everyone of foreign background. Not only mass migration ought to stop but the one that already has happened is of an illegitimate nature and a policy that already violated a) the opinion of native majority b) even more importantly than their opinion against mass migration, their interest and right, not to be replaced in their own homeland. Which also comes along with their interest not to be replaced by hostile foreign tribes that retain a foreign identity which is part and parcel of mass migration of a foreign ethnic groups and can't be separated.
However some level of limited migration can be legitimate. Britain should have net negative migration at this point and for quite some time. But you can have a few into the many, who respect the nation of the many, and understand it is the homeland of the natives and willing to make a life there without deconstructing the nation and its legitimacy. Nor are they in sufficient numbers to screw them over, and nor are they being disrespectful. So mass migration of hostile foreigners is inherently an illegitimate agenda that violates the human rights of the native people, which is why it isn't an accident that anti-native ideologues support it, because it helps them do all of their agenda to screw over the native ethnic group, and put above the migrant ethnic groups.
Moreover it is possible for a certain nation state and limited civic nationalism to coexist, provided the later recognised the first. Opposing any nation state leads to communist like soviet new man oppressive societies, and in the current context also comes along with putting migrants first, something that those supporting or oppossing mass migration, should be aware of, and have a duty to be aware of. And a random observer would expect them to be aware of.
Current Britain is one of the more exemplary failure of the ideology of war against nation state.
Anyhow some migrants can be closer to host nation and more easier assimiliable, in addition to the case of others who are small in number and selected for human capital and more important than IQ, friendlyness (with ethnic similarity also working as proxy for that in many cases). The few can more easilly mix and become the many, provided they have the mentality of doing so and don't retain an identity hostile to the natives. Paper Brits like the stabber and many of the rioter counter protesters should not be in places like Britain, but in their actual homelands that they hold greater connection with than they have towards the English, Welsh, Scots, etc people.
Supporting mass migration should qualify as a criteria for recognizing an individual as putting the interest of foreigners first and disregarding the interests of the natives and their ethnic groups. It is a very hostile act. Should matter when considering deportations both in terms of patterns of groups and in terms of specific individuals.
On the other side, it is a prerequisite of a good migrant, or descendant of migrants to support shutting down the door behind them and to like the native nativists more than foreign migrants outside wanting to come in. The state should control such sentiments not only by inviting far less, deporting people after the criminal error at expense of its own people of letting too many whcih inevitably have these hostility, but also should both select those with pro native sentiments, but also try to enforce and encourage among migrants the duty to respect their host nation and their people. Over the sadistic disregard of them that we see as the rising sentiment today. Hence, the kind of people who ought to be prioritized, those more likely to be net drains, criminals but also those who are hostile and make things into a two tier society, even if they are otherwise economically competent.
Additionally, good migrants of foreign ethnicity who proportionately to the natives have to be a smaller proportion, because mass migration of foreigners is itself is a hostile and immoral act should support some level of deportations against the bad migrants that are taking over the country of the Britons and part of the disrespect and two tier society. There is certainly a problem of native, antinativism though that also deserves attention. There is also a possibility for some migrants being in their sentiments of less severe form of extremism and deradicalized. Although too many numbers is it self an issue but I don't care to promote the specific minitia of how this should be enforced since I don't really have a strong opinion on that, but the general template is the obvious response to antinative policy, sentiment being enforced and colonization.
Indeed WW2 provides lessons. The problem of the mid century Germans wasn't that they opposed migration, or didn't like the genuinely evil and european hating Frankfurt school and familiars, which should never have been allowed to take root in USA and from then elsewhere, but that they tried to invade and greatly replace other nations and also disallow them from being nations, having national independence and institutions. Disrespecting legitimate rights of other ethnic groups including atrocities relating to that. Ironically there is a shared element between Frankfurt school types who see their outgroup nationalists as authoritarian personality insane and evil and Germans who were saying that the Russian or Polish nation is a threat, and even modern types like Soros and fellow travelers who consider modern European nations a threat to Jews, Muslims and other so called minorities who actually some of them are worldwide not quite such a small minority.
Well, there were also deportations, including through violence which isn't an example to follow at end of WW2 from places Germans have been there for long, but also there was a reversal of the agenda of Germans to Germanize parts of Europe and replace the non Germans. The later element which was about stopping colonization is the lesson here, not to follow the course of any side fully from WW2 since a lot of bad behavior around even among the less badly behaved parties. And of course in age of decolinization, Europeans left from many countries which also took property restrictions in addition to in some cases, deportations which included a more violent nature than what I advocate.
But Europeans aren't seen as wronged by this, and in fact people claiming to support decolonization claim that mass migration is the new form of decolonization which is of course about colonizing Europeans. In general the correct idea of national rights as part of international justice is commonly accepted, and in fact even plenty of strong reactions can be excused. Well, I am not looking for that, but looking for rules that are consistent in general and protect Europeans and others affected by this too (like perhaps Japanese might start to be targeted), but also with special attention towards those targeted for destruction, to the extend this network is active. International organizations like Amnesty international that pretend that Europeans aren't indigenous, should not exist and that is the fig leave of those who either pretend the rules don't exist, or come with excuses not to apply them to Europeans, or simply don't understand their value.
The agenda to end the existence of Europeans in their homelands is a criminal extremely racist agenda that is against international justice, and the crime of trying to diminish Europeans as a hated dhimni minority is a crime against humanity. Which definitely means that the media who are an organ of masisve power and massive responsibility promoting "mass migration", or a political party having such an agenda, raises to the level of advocating and implementing the kind of things that should not be allowed and makes perfect sense to consider treason. Same for ideological NGOs, or ethnic supremacist organisations advocating on behalf of other groups and expense of Europeans and the general network that makes those working together for such agenda.
Even for laypeople, they have a moral obligation, whatever their ethnicity to not advocate for this, but things escalate when one reaches important institutions where such agenda should not be promoted. Internationally oriented perspective and institutions and also nationally oriented ones where it affects theirs, and people who have both perspectives in a certain mixture, should reject agendas to destroy Europeans or any particular group of ethnic groups, and assert the protection of peoples and their homeland as an obvious core value. So, not only in Britain but international NGOs, or the agenda that results from the leaders of EU, UN, NATO, etc, etc, should of course support the rights of Europeans in their own homeland.
I am confident that I understood your position when I tried to explore your position and found it contradictory and not much different with countless neocons who argued that nationalism for Israel is acceptable under pluralistic grounds but identity politics for whites is unacceptable. I even give people whose position fits into that, as supporting or tolerating identity politics of more extreme and pervasive type, but overly focusing on white identity politics, an opportunity to actually support changing the situation into one where rules are enforced equally and identitarian organisations of the form of ADL, NAACP and similiar are shut down. But they don't even do the cheap rhetorical commitment of doing that.
The reality is if you have a kid that is being ganged upon by a group of other kids, and some of these kids include the establishment right, and you see both clear supporters of other kids, and people whose position might be a little less obvious but still support the other kids, argue that the beaten kid shouldn't fight back, well that position is a) clearly against the other kid b) it is legitimate for people to conclude that the person advocating it is doing it because he is out to get the other kid, and isn't doing it by accident because of an ideological commitment to pacifism.
Which is why people who exercise freedom of speech like Orwell, made exactly such suspicions about some people who promoted pacifism but were actually USSR sympathisers.
I fully understand why people who have such position want people to accept that they are doing nothing wrong, but it is not understanding that you want, but complimentary misunderstanding. Perhaps you would be ok with complimentary understanding where people are willing to accept different standards for Israel and for Europeans as a good thing which we have seen plenty of such rhetoric in both the motte and outside of it. And you don't show hostility to it ever.
Not to mention it is fair to explore the end results of what you advocate, and all the shared ground you plural who advocate similiar positions, and you singular have with blatant ethnic activists and far left activists, and to note such similarities.
Also fully fair to note that the fact that collective identity politics don't exist, is a self evidently false statement, including about ethnic groups and also a very destructive and radical notion. Just one that is pervasive promoted against right wingers by gatekeepers in the USA because of the success of activists who have been antiwhite, and have used it as part of motte and bailey against whites.
Establishment types in the places where this radical ideologues and activists have been successful and all sort of lower level "thought leaders" who share this type of ideology, have constantly, just as you have demonstrated again, be completely hostile to discussing such issues, showing a complete lack of respect towards any dissenters.
Political correctness in favor of the position against collective group interest and positive identity, and also against especially europeans is enforced through slander, vilification and censorship and enormous lack of charity. One especially willing to use such methods have been those who want two tiers world in regards to Israel and Jewish nationalism and European nationalism, where they are willing to support a huge excess of the first, while opposing the healthy legitimate rights of the later.
This is to say, people who try to accurately explore these issues are attacked for doing so, by people who want to enforce a doublethink on them and get away with agendas that are very destructive against certain groups. Supporters of the modern antinative establishment and negative group identity for europeans, do not and have never shown anything but lack of charity against anyone who opposes this agend.
Accurately revealing the ugly side of how the sausage is made leads to such reaction. So there is typically and here again a lot of of projection about lack of charity, when you are being incredibly uncharitable in dismissing everything the other party has said.
Although, while such issues ought to be adequately explored, it is also true that the advocate of X or Y radical destructive position, isn't in itself someone who ought to have any megaphone. This machine/network which is so enthusiastic about shutting down any timid collectivism for their oppressed outgroup, should be suppressed.
It is justifiable in general for people to both criticize, and oppose agendas that are very destructive towards other groups, (especially when the other group being harmed is their own group), and even more so when they don't fit into grey areas.
Opposing such things is being charitable towards the innocent and those harmed by them, while not opposing them is being uncharitable. Those who do promote a very destructive agenda, are not treated unfairly if their agenda is stated accurately and therefore are in that manner criticized for it. Nor if they are criticized more directly than I did here. And neither if they are stopped from harming people.
We ought to look at consequences, have important moral priors and not excuse ideological window dressing that tries to frame something that is very destructive and comes along with double standards, or oppressive, by misstating it and promoting an inaccurately complimentary positive frame. Whether it is the positive version of the strawman, or it simply indifferent to the damage the ideology does.
But we do need a world that discusses and explores such issues, which is a requirement to understand why some perspectives are destructive. And part of this includes sharing good moral priors.
Like the ones I argued about reciprocity, consistency, understanding the successes that comes from internationalism of reciprocoal nationalism, and the destructive nature of not allowing nations to exist, etc, etc. Or the importance of not covering the substance of what is happening by frames that excuse and mislead. Believe me, I don't explore and argue such things just cause I woke one morning and thought "I have it out against naraburns" but because such issues that you devalue, in a manner that is genuinely extremely destructive against Europeans, are legitimately valuable. When I say this path had lead to disaster, is because it did and does. That doesn't mean that in a place here, I am not debating it. But it isn't an issue where your position is a reasonable way to explore the issue of european group interests, or of nationalism.
There is plenty of debate to be had about legitimate issues that exist in the grey lines, even though whether collective group interests, or collective group interests exist, is not only the case where the position you have advocated is wrong, but it also is one of those issues that we can explore and have correct conclusions about why you are wrong. Note that this isn't an opportunity for a claim that justifies censorship on the basis of opposing close midnedness. Because the view that your position is very wrong, and advocating something destructive and self evidently unreasonable is legitimate. People don't have to treat proposition like "collective interests don't exist" as valid, when they are highly invalid claims.
The existence of illegitimate issues that political corectness tries to enforce is why political corectness comes along with postmodernism as a means to promote and weaponize excessive subjectivity on the issues it can be demonstrated to be wrong. And then assert very radical positions confidently and cancel dissenters.
Such as the arrogant path against nations, that so often comes along with authoritarianism. The advocates of the "antinationalist agenda" are pervasively, and not only on those openly identifying as part of the left, or woke, those where they see some groups as inherently more reactionary, and some as inherently more equal. This is a common trend among the anti nationalist anti collective group interest faction.
Both an agenda against the existence of nations, and even more radically, collective group interest in general and specifically the agenda against particular nations like European nations, is not hard to decipher that it is a destructive position. The "no collectivism" arguement against whites isn't a mystery, of how it is connected with current antiwhite practices, laws.
Nor is it had to imagine how the current radical status quo will lead in the future in a worsening situation, as the demographics who supporting doubling down on such issues, increase, and as authoritarian measures against dissenters are intensified. And while those doing so, gain legitimacy by advocacy against collective group interests who focus their ire the "identitarian right" and cover up for the establishment in the places where such establishment has been sufficiently captured by racist radicals and those who compromise and comprise with them on such issues a unipaty. Saying that what the position you advocate for, ends in those consequences is an accurate observation about the influence of what you advocate.
Of course, people should explore such issues enough to understand how certain perspectives pave the way to hell. Even if you want us not to be able to do so.
But the end point is to understand what is happening and stop building the road to hell. Not deny its existence, attack those who point it. And certainly not to compliment the ideologies that lead us there.
Israel is a reasonably successful pluralistic state in a region of the world that desperately needs more such things.
Israel is a Jewish highly nationalist state that affords privileges to Jews on the basis of ethnicity and very willing to commit mass violence against Palestinians on basis of benefiting Jews and hating the foreign group treated as a hostile outside threat. It is a highly nationalist state because the Jews are collectively a highly nationalistic people, which is why they are so hostile to the nationalism of other groups.
It is certainly an exclusive state that sees itself collectively. That not only Jews are part of that state does not make it a pluralistic state, nor is there any significant movement to open Israel's border even to high human capital mass migration. Plenty of nation states can have a minority group. You are just using pluralism as an excuse to support and defend the Jewish nationalism of Israel. You want to get away with double standards by using rhetoric of pluralism where if you genuinely had a problem with nationalism and collective group interests, you would be criticizing Israel for how it fails pluralism in the region by supporting violence and regime change against other groups (now I am not blaming Israelis alone for being the only nationalists in the region of course), not trying to come with a frame that allows you to keep your cake and eat it too.
Moreover, the point isn't just Israel it self but its supporters and the Jewish supremacist faction in general who are authoritarian who try to maintain through slander, cancel culture and authoritarianism and through even legislation a two tier system that has Jews as a superior caste where they are treated as in the right and other groups as their oppressors both historically, and presently and where resources and support is advocated to be directed in favor of them. Where politicians who don't support funding Israel and aren't controlled by AIPAC like Massie are slandered as antisemites, which of course such behavior and rhetoric qualifies as identity politics in favor of collective interests of Jews.
Now, I am not trying to debate this issue with Jewish supremacists who support it and think Jews genuinely are a superior people that a convenient false slander label they come up with of "antisemites" have a problem with because they are evil and there is nothing wrong with the Jewish supremacist agenda (it doesn't exist but it is good and one is evil to oppose it).
I dunno if you are willing yourself to advance such an argument and try to paint it as not qualifying as Jewish identity politcs.
I reject outright that viewpoint, but the point isn't to debate it with Jewish identitarians (including non Jews Jewish identitarians)who support it, but that Jewish identity politics are pervasive. My view is that they are of a supremacist. overzealous form at expense of other nations, and uncompromising nature, but even if one disagrees with that, their existence, including especially among republicans too, is even less up to debate.
But, I wouldn't say that Jewish collective interests are illegitimate if not of an overzealous parasitical nature, although collective Jewish interests of any nature become much more illegitimate when there are enough Jews and even non Jewish overzealous supporters of Jews who deny collective interests of other groups. Additionally, they become illegitimate if we adopt that ideology and promote it consistently. The more these people advocate such arguments, the more we should not grant rights to those who don't believe such rights should be granted to others.
Does Israel have a right to exist? Certainly far less so when you claim there are no collective interests. The law of reciprocity, and applying rules consistently argues against Israel's rights since it is a particularist state that denies the opportunity to countless non Jews to be part of it.
Claiming that there is a problematic white identitarian right is covering for an establishment right that goes way above and beyond in promoting the collective interests of various groups but especially authoritarian on Jews and Israel. In an overzealous parasitical manner at expense of others.
But I would disagree, because there are no benefits I would extend to the Israeli people that I would not cheerfully extend to anyone whose behavior is reasonably comparable. Since I do not give any special consideration to the Jewish people or Israeli nationals (many of whom are not Jewish), it is nonsense to say that I "support identity politics for Jews."
So theoretically you treat everyone the same even though when push comes to shove you don't actually do that in terms of your stated positions since you support a Jewish nationalist state that takes in consideration collective Jewish interests in its policy but oppose the collective interests of Europeans. Somehow your double standards are ok because Israel is pluralistic.
It isn't my fault that your positions are contradictory.
At the current situation Israel is guilty of genocide in accordance to the International Court of Justice. Is your argument that Israel is exceptional in its behavior to justify your massive double standards? Jewish exceptionalism is hardcore Jewish identity politics 101. It is different because Jews deserve more because of their innately better behavior would be identity politics in addition to being inaccurate general, but doubly so in the current circumstances to advocate the neocon arguement of Israel as shining beacon of light upon the nations above the nationalistic tribal conflict typical in humanity.
I find your claim of consistency to be inaccurate.
Hypothetically, it is different but in practice, we have been here before, the end result of people doing this motte and bailey and claiming to be in theory against collectivism, is to support the abuse and disregard of the rights of their European outgroup. And this comes along with hardcore cancel culture too and authoritarianism.
Have you been as loud about shutting down groups like ADL, NAACP, AIPAC, and many more which are much more influential to justify focusing upon over white collective? Have you taken part in the debate of the goverment, including local promoting hate speech codes, including republicans, in favor of Jews and against non Jews, by opposing this?
If not, how is a status quo with identitarian overzealous groups that actually are succeeding in mistreating whites, and one where there are no acceptable white advocacy organizations, one that leads to where you claim you favor going?
Unless where you favor going is a two tier society that is excused under the pretense of exceptionalism, or justification of historical oppression.
Of course, in practical terms, it's very difficult to carry out sweeping government intervention without engaging in interest aggregation. To me, this seems like an excellent reason to not have sweeping government interventions. Government should focus on coordinating behaviors for the good of everyone. Thus for example, having a standard for traffic flow is good. It doesn't matter who you are, you stop on red and go on green; this is not a deep moral principle, it's just the otherwise-arbitrary standard we all follow so we can all accrue benefit from the common use of roads. That's a totally appropriate use of government power, on my view, and there is not so much as a whiff of "identity politics" in it. Many things are good for everyone, and many things can be appropriately targeted toward objective individual differences rather than group membership.
This is pretty communist way to see the duty of goverment and must be rejected outright even if someone supported it sincerely as it is a very extreme nonsensical idea that has worked very poorly and disregards fundamentally important facets of constitutional governance. In practice, when it comes to the end result of what they support there very few commited antinationalists of a consistent civic libertarian viewpoint and many more people advancing such viewpoint that are neocons. Indeed I can't but think of Gad Saad as an example who has promoted this mantra of opposing identity politics, is an overzealous Jewish identitarian and admitted that he worked for Mossad once in an operation in Canada.
Neither the goverment, nor private institutions should limit themselves to only issues like traffic lights. Who is you or anyone, to decide that governments should deny and not promote the collective interests of people in their own homelands? Especially when you are supportive of Israel which does exactly that.
To destroy all precedent of nation and constitutional order, in favor of a regime that through such excuses violates native rights in favor of foreign groups. Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean you have valid reason to not want it, and that it isn't a terrible idea to deny them their legitimate rights and create a totalitarian society that oppresses people who belong in ethnic communities in general, and also more so in specific ones in particular.
Of course issues relating to group relations, national history, and immigration need to be decided and governments have a duty to promote the interests of their nation and people, well to a point where they don't act parasitically against other nations and there is some room for debate about where that line is. A reasonable application would require shutting down the machine/network out to oppress, and or destroy the continuing existence of white ethnic groups though.
I am going to also defend the precautionary value of connecting the dots of what people directly argue and also taking in consideration the fact that people who promote arguments against collectivism because of reasons of antipathy and sympathy are so pervasive that we ought to assume that a denial of collective interests against Europeans is about denying collective interests of Europeans because one favors other groups too much and is acting out of antipathy. One would allow people to continue doing this unimpeded by being gullible.
It doesn't matter how one tries to excuse things, if they support the establishment and are satisfied with how they are against identity politics, then what they compromise with is a situation where they support the dominant ideology which is motte and bailey between "I oppose identity politics, collectivism, tribalism" and "I support and promote it through law and policy the collective interests of X, Y other groups at expense of whites". And it really is about using the pretense of universalism to harm a particular outgroup. If someone has some doublethink about this and isn't aware of what they align with, it doesn't change the consequences of the ideology of the faction they prefer.
Because there's no such thing as collective interests.
Of course there are collective interests. Including on ethnic issues. And we also need decisions to be made about such issues. For example X group has a collective interest not to be blamed for things it did do, or for things it didn't do. It has a collective interest to not be a hated minority in its own country. To have national sovereignity and self determination. It definetly has a collective interest to have recognised collective interests and to suppress enemies that want to mistreat it or destroy it, by denying it any of its collective interests.
The reality is that people who claim there are no collective interests do take a side that favors some collective interests far more than others.
There are even possible collective interests that might go too far for one group that violates legitimate collective interests of other groups. Claiming that there are no collective interests is a clear falsehood that is not really up to debate based on the fact that it is self evidently false. It is easier to violate the collective rights and interests of a group if you deny them.
Or, perhaps it would be better to say that collective interests are an abstraction which erode proper attention to individual circumstance.
It is very arrogant of you to deny collective interest to nations and you are walking a path that has failed catastrophically. Imagine non nations, religions, collectives is an impossible dream that leads to a violent repressive dystopia. Although in my view you are inconsistent and are advancing an argument to promote it against the outgroup.
Individual circumstance are definitely affected by collective interests. Individuals together form groups who individually benefit through their collective interests on many more issues than traffic lights. There is a reason why foreign extreme nationalists oppose national collectivism and rootedness for the ethnic groups they have on their sights. And the reason is because they want to harm and prey upon them, which is harder to do against a people who defend their collective interests and have a nation that tries to stop treason. No collective interests for the outgroup, makes it easy to harm them.
Which is why activists that are definitely collectivists have been the key drivers of this. Because they opposed the collective interests of their outgroup. So at the current situation we are at where collectivists for other groups, that oppose collectivism for Europeans, are getting their way.
But in general, I would deny what you claim even outside the particulars of the problem of the motte and bailey being a core part of "no collective interests". It is highly destructive to humanity in general to throw aside the valid ground gained related to collective group interests, relating to the valuable concept of the rights of ethnic community, value of rootedness and connection with ones history and ethnic community, national self determination, nation state, national sovereignty and international justice which is about recognizing such collective rights and recognizing limits and reciprocal compromise. Replacing them with an ideology of denial is self destructive for any group that adopts this and enables racial hatred from other groups who are now entitled in not allowing others to have those things.
The activists know this which is why activists who highly dislike X group but support Z, oppose X taking collective group identity and their rights as a nation in consideration.
You are part of the identitarian left since you support identity politics for Jews, and the default on the republicans which is to promote identity politics for blacks, hispanics, etc but not for whites. Which is actually a far more identitarian and racist position than if the republicans pandered more towards white Americans. Which they ought to and it is antidemocratic and antiwhite and antiamerican and racist for them not to do this.
To talk of an existence of an identitarian right in American politics is to promote a false concept. Everyone in American politics supports and promotes identity politics, especially those claiming otherwise who are far more extreme and have a very racist anti-native platform.
The so called identitarian right are basically the only people who don't adopt the leftist ideology to support identity politics for non whites and oppose it for whites on antiwhite grounds, while laundering this ideology under universalist pretenses. The more moderate version of this, people like Jon Harris are genuinely objectively promoting something far less racist than antiwhite identitarians. https://gab.com/jonharris1989. A lacking identity politics for whites is basically antiwhite and could be very well argued to be treasonous in european countries and xenophobic demand in non european countries. While of course limitless white identity politics shares morally the problem of the kind of identity politics both you and more hardcore identitarians of the progressive stack.
Now, you aren't directly progressive stack for non Jews , but by focusing on opposing white identity politics, supporting immigration, and tolerating nonwhite identity politics, you still qualify as part of that faction and team. People who sincerely claim to oppose any form of collective identity should hate the current establishment right and should focus especially their rhetoric against Jewish organizations and two tier society they demand and of course other progressive organizations, not try to focus so much on trying to influence the group that is getting discriminated to have no advocates and collectivism. When that is obviously related to them getting screwed over. Obviously people who focus on the not real problem of excessive white identity politics and cover up the real problem of excessive Jewish (especially this because the republicans have promoted enormous level of jewish identity politics including in legislation), Black, Hispanic, etc identity politics among the fake establishment right, are not promoting a valid argument. It is also valid to argue that they align with progressive faction.
Of course "no nations, family, religion, collective identity" is commie immoral ideology anyhow that has lead to enormous persecution of normal people by fanatical ideologues and also mass murders. And done also in all particular singular axis, including ethnicity/race.
Moreover its adherents often are inconsistent and also see certain ethnic groups as inherently bigger enemies of their racial utopia than others. Anti-white racism is obviously motivated by the idea that white identity politics is inherently evil, from the pretense of universalist opposition to racism. Which is about the idea that they are uniquely reactionary and evil while nationalism for groups like blacks, Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, is not.
But there is a validity in opposing certain forms of overzealous tribalism, and especially where it is more illegitimate. Even native nationalism can go out of hand but in european countries it is antinative nationalism the problem today and persecuting the native european people. As for how tribalism levels can change based on context, for example, Nigerians should be nationalistic to a point in Nigeria, but shouldn't even be in any significant numbers in say Britain, and to the extend there are a few of them there, should respect Britain as the homeland of British ethnic groups like English, Welsh, Scots and be much less for Nigerian nationalism in Britain that belongs to the British.
Native identity politics is a key element of justice, both national (lack of it being treasonous and in various constitutions it is explicit that the rulers should prioritize the interests of the nation and going against their nation would qualify as treason) and of international justice specifically, and foreigners respecting the rights of foreign nations is anti-racist. The demand against white identity politics is not about anti-racism but about anti-white racism and not respecting the human rights of white people in their own homelands. It is about an agenda of colonizing these countries and treating its native inhabitans as lesser class citizens and making any resistance to this vilified and illegal.
Note that if we define the USA as a country that isn't just the homeland of European americans and that other groups have a right to it, like blacks, and the relationship to it of more recent mass migration is a huge can of worms, but even then the genuine politics people try to gatekeep which is "pander towards other groups but not whites" which leads to whites being discriminated increasingly not hired in corporate america, make zero sense. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
Why shouldn't the majority ethnic group have their collective interests be taken seriously by its rulers? Why is oppressing them by adopting immoral commie politics (which also are the immoral politics that foreign extreme nationalists follow against foreign nations they dislike and try to keep down) against normies belonging in their ethnic community, a good thing at all?
Actually giving the majority ethnic group a positive collective identity and taking in consideration their interests as a group (well to a point, you don't invade your neighbors to gain more land and displace them for example as that goes too far) is part of promoting the common good. It is also part of what being a country is about and national sovereignity is about things like limiting immigration, and promoting the continued existence of ethnic community or at most and it is quite more difficult thing to do, particular ethnic communities.
The dominant strain of American politics is of a two tier society hiding behind pretenses of opposing identity politics that nobody, or almost nobody follows consistently. The correct take is that this is obviously racist antiwhite politics by the continuous success of activists who have influenced society (including in the Republican party) that want to put the interest of non white groups first and to completely disregard the interests of whites, including the basic interest in their continued existence as ethnic groups. Which is why there is a problem with NGOs and Jewish organizations which particularly played and play important role that are racist and have obviously promoted this two tier society, but also black activist organizations and other organizations, because of this overzealous nature they have in not respecting the rights of their white christian outgroup.
He is certainly not trying to provoke a reaction in favor of the white peasants. He genuinely is a Muslim chauvinist who disdains white normies. Is he trying to state things in an inflammatory manner and trigger people and provoke a reaction? Yes. He both favors hating on the white "peasants" in favor of muslims, and is willing to distort the facts of the performance of both groups to promote this idea that natives suck, migrants are superior that he obviously likes.
The idea that the ideology of "natives suck, migrants superior" can not be sincere, doesn't make sense at all. Examples of this ideology among migrants isn't rare and it exists even among a component of native elites who push above their weight due to appeasement and toleration by others.
Belisarius
.
3mo ago
According to Andrew Torba of Gab he posted on Gab arguing in favor of Biden/Democrats on various issues such as migration and mandates.
And here is Elon Musk responding to it: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1818340245139554333
It seems you are promoting a distorted picture and acting as if never trumpers never didn't do nothing and it is all the bad Trump. Trump is attacking Kemp for not promoting unity and his wife not endorsing Trump after according to Trump benefiting from Trump's endorsement and in private acting much differently. THEN we see Kemp's response. You accept the frame that Trump is the one promoting disunity even though it isn't as clear and you then endorse further disunity as the way for republicans to prove they are men.
I don't know the details of why Kemp's wife wouldn't endorse Trump, but the screenshot it self shows the picture you are trying to paint to be misleading.
At what point would these guys actually draw a line in the sand?
It's hilarious because these Repubs think of themselves as the party of Real Men, but this is absolutely womanly behavior.
Well, maybe not womanly, if Kemp's wife has said she's not voting for Trump even if her husband is, lol.
Of course the republicans who are a party submisive to big donors, lobbies, and the left aren't that great. Kemp's wife is not manly for not voting for the republican candidate. She might like a greater proportion of women than men, be part of this problem, although we need more details to ascertain what is going on. Women are not manly nor courageous for being more liberal than men and that might be part of what is happening.
Trump isn't really all that great but republicans would be even greater losers for listening to such blatantly bad advice to become disunited to prove "manly" against the meanie Trump. They have a problem of people who hate the right being part of it. And even though Trump himself has some of this problem too, much of the opposition to him has to do with the successful subversion of western center and right by the left. Basically symbolically Trump represents more of an opposition than they are willing to tolerate. This doesn't make supporting Trump to be automatically correct, but it does argue against bad reasons for opposing Trump.
It seems you are promoting that you want republicans to be against their own candidate to prove they are men. This is wrongheaded and if the republicans are a political opposition to you, well it looks like you promote division against your political opposition so they lose. Of course neither republicans, nor outsiders should listen to such claims at minimum. Actually if we want to encourage republicans to be acting in a more bold manner, they should be more aggressive against attempts of subversion.
There is a constant repetition of people willing to offer "advice" to what they see as part of the right that goes that to win elections, to prove you are compassionate, non racist, manly, principled, respectable, true Christian, not a far right extremist, etc, you ought to act in this X,Y, Z self destructive manner. Opposing that and powerful donors, and lobbies promoting what is destructive to their civilization is what right wingers should show some genuine courage towards. Doing what is right even if someone would call you a bad label to try to manipulate you, or there is a possibility of genuine cancel culture. It takes zero courage to be self destructive over irrelevant petty drama and therefore enable the left to dominate politics.
I find master morality vs slave morality as another unnecessary division because both concepts have flaws and merits and i find it a bad idea to have to choose from one or the other, when the better choice tries to avoids the flaws of each.
Scott doesn't seem to get it, nor is he interested to get it.
The idea is that Jews and Christians used slave morality to invert values and to promote pathological altruism for their outgroup as a way to get their way. And after that, of course in modernity more besides those groups have done so.
In confronting people who think that their groups also have rights, and want to put their group first, Scott's response is to accuse them of cruelty. He doesn't get it whatsoever, or he doesn't want to get it and finds it convenient to double down. This isn't an approach that sees the nuance.
The reality is that the typical liberal ideologue whether Marcuse, Yglesias, Ozy or even Scott are not the kindest people because they think they should rule over us. Their will to power, also does not make them supermen, although they might share some of the pathology of the people they accuse of adopting master morality. Additionally, there is something very cruel in the disregard of the interests and rights of specific groups that people like Scott want to put other groups (like Africans) on the pedestal above their own interests. I don't buy Scotts own conception of his own kindness (and nor of others he shares ideology) and I disagree with him trying to disregard right wingers as just cruel. He is not charitably taking seriously and engaging with their argument, but tries to just dimiss it.
Moreover, there is a connection between the self conception of far left radicals as the best people ever, and their right wing opposition as evil, cruel, etc, and their willingness to inflict cruelty, under the idea that these left wing radicals are just out to do good.
Ultimately, I find it a convenient way to sneakilly disregard the interests of right wingers and their favorite groups, while virtue signalling.
So, that is my problem with slave morality. That it can be abused, and that pathological altruism when coming internally, not incited from manipulative outsiders is also detrimental. Which is part of what most people complaining about slave morality have an issue with.
As for master morality, I actually agree with people like Scott that it can lead to disregarding morality. It can lead into an ideology that is in favor of preying towards the weak.
Right wingers and their associated ethnic groups have rights, interests, and it is fine to put their own first. It is grossly immoral for anyone to act outraged at the suggestion of such groups having rights, community, interests and not being pathological altruists. Demand for people to be pathological altruists and condemning them as evil when they are not is immoral, cruel, hostile, and inhumane.
The fact that there are authoritarian oppressive organizations which are hostile against right wingers, and associated ethnic groups and for disregarding their rights while talking of love, doesn't change the reality. They just use in their propaganda the idea that they are about love, when in actuality they are about hatred and keeping their outgroup down.
That being said, I do think you have a certain obligation to not harm outsiders and justice is about the golden rule and reciprocity. Is about mutually respected red lines. For example, within a society a parent should put their children first, but do so by working hard, not by stealing and harming others.
Some component of altruism can be part of it, but never pathological altruism which is immoral and often demanded by people who often enough identify more with the interests of foreign tribes (we see liberals to have in polls strong antiwhite views for example and a strong negative bias towards whites) who try to subvert people to act against their own interests. So, trying to make the weak and incompetent to be equal to those doing better, is not justice but rules that protect the weak from predation from the strong is part of justice. Nor is it moral to be forcing others to sacrifice everything and lose what is very important and precious to them for the sake of outsiders.
I would say, that reciprocity can exist even in a system where there is some level of limited redistribution and help under the idea that if they were in the same position, they would help us. And by not demanding too destructive sacrifices on people, like accepting their ethnic group's destruction. This is definitely NOT the deal offered today by those demanding pathological altruism in favor of Africans.
So yeah, I think both slave morality and master morality in the way they tend to be understood are not the best paths. They aren't always opposite since sneaky extreme nationalists can pretend to be pathological altruists motivated just by sympathy towards the weak and underdogs when promoting rules that harm their ethnic outgroups. Or, genuine slave morality by one group can help feed into another group's hubris and that group would then in turn be acting rapaciously and with extreme entitlement and believing themselves to have zero moral obligation towards others.
Prison time is just one form of punishment. A ruined reputation can be a fair punishment by your community for committing particular crimes. It can be an unfair reaction, of course when the community is judgemental over nonsense. What this guy has done is sufficiently bad for him to deserve to be hated for it by Dutch fans. This also helps as a deterrent. It also isn't unfair for the Guardian to argue that a year might be too little of a punishment for this crime.
The Guardian have launched a lot of misplaced moral crusades, but I don't object to a 19year old who had sex with a 12 years old and is a groomer and a child rapist, getting hatred for it.
I do object with the Guardian and other British media pointing particular fingers towards the Dutch. Any such criticism should come along with a lot of self criticism. I don't trust however the likes of Guardian would succeed in changing things only to proper directions. Britain is the kind of country that arrests autistic children for calling a lesbian, a female cop which was in fact a lesbian. Britain due in part of the influence of media like the Guardian, is not at the place that is an example for other countries.
I can't find the link of it now, but I also recall a news article of an autistic, introverted boy getting arrested in Britain because he touched his own classmate in the shoulder.
A nice tale. They are all just making these up. Not relevant that Maxwell was Israel superspy and his daughter is involved in the same business but somehow not for the same side. The Jewich chauvinists attracted to the whole project are just a coincidence. So are the constant visits of Ehud Barak, Israel ex prime minister with myriad of visits. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ehud-barak-met-with-jeffrey-epstein-dozens-of-times-flew-on-private-plane-report/
You are just so incurious about why exactly Epstein was collecting the evidence of politicians raping children.
Sorry, but neither your tale in diminishing the evidence is convincing, nor do I buy your intentions in telling it at face value. Especially since you previously pretended that those evidence didn't exist but now you are aware of Ben Menashe and ready to dismiss him. And as I now added the Ehud Barak issue, obviously this was far from exhaustive.
A Mossad blackmail operation, as part of a facet of this intlligence operation, is what fits the evidence and the testimonies.
And nobody in Mossad, which has tons of discontented leakers willing to speak to the press, has discussed intelligence Epstein’s blackmail operations supposedly produced. Given a substantial majority of those Epstein cavorted with were either powerless (like Prince Andrew) or Jewish, the objective of this supposed blackmail operation for Mossad is not even clear. Was this a dastardly scheme to blackmail Jewish billionaires into… supporting Israel? Certainly one can’t imagine them doing so otherwise.
And what was this very Jewish operation of people like Ghislane out to do then but obviously to collect blackmail. Or are you disputing the tapes now? Which somehow haven't been used to reveal the clients.
Other than the "nothing to see here" black hole, that is not naive, something worse, you really aren't serious here but engaging in desperatly trying to shut down this issue, this kind of naivety is not natural, rare can a person manage to combine an ability to not notice such important issues (like tapes) and make such strong claims.
Why were they including other Jews in the operation? Probably because like Epstein some of them were perverts, as a reward for loyalty, like the super jewish chauvinist and Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz, accused of rape by victims of this network. Some like Barak were probably there for the intelligence gathering and to coordinate it, and not to make direct use of Epstein's "products".
However, I don't see why they wouldn't implicate Jews too, to get them to also doubly work for such causes. Or to let them know that if they sing, they are going to get exposed. Not only blackmail but Jews like Maxwell or Epstein end up getting killed too by Mossad. Do you have an answer other than nothing to see here? Why were they apparently blackmailing Jews. Why so many Jews involved has an obvious answer of some of them willing to work along with it. Or do you deny that as is the tendency in such issue to deny facts as conspiracy theories? Because the blackmailing of Jews by Jews in the Epstein case is a fact. And the backing of Epstein by another pro Israel Jewich chauvinist in Wexner who created a group of Jewish billionaires in MEGA group was also a fact.
Other than obfuscation and throwing Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, are you interested like OJ about the real perpetrators and who is actually behind the Epstein (and Maxwell) issue? I guess we should stop asking questions and just end the discussion at "it just happens" and "not Mossad".
The real interesting question is whether state within a state Jewish NGOs in general are interconnected, and have any Mossad ties. There is a reason people like Epstein were allowed to operate and it isn't that "it is just normal in a society" where nothing can be done, but that broader network which is in operation, until it is brought down.
There was also the accusation from another Ben Menashe worked for Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate from 1977 to 1987. accused directly of Epstein being Mossad. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12926465/jeffrey-epstein-list-friendship-israeli-prime-minister-ehud-barak.html Laura Goldman, Epstein's friend also thought that Ghislane father and her daughter were Mossad agents https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7761169/Jeffrey-Epstein-book-claims-Ghislaine-Maxwell-Mossad-spies.html
The suspicion of Robert Maxwell being Mossad includes plenty more of course. Here is a 2002 hebrew book from Amazon about Robert Maxwell, Israel's superspy. https://www.amazon.com/-/he/Martin-Dillon/dp/0786710780
There is also that "he was of intelligence", and the sweetheart deal.
One of the backers of Epstein was the Jewish billionaire Les Wexner of Victoria Secret who was also one of the two founders of the MEGA group, a group of wealthy Jews pushing "jewish" issues. Probably it self a Mossad front or related group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Wexner
So it is just not true at all that the only reason to think Epstein is Mossad is because Epstein said so.
Like another thing you have argued in the past that Epstein just killed himself, which is convenient as it helps end the conversation and not look at who this network really is, which also doesn't make sense, since security cameras were off and all sorts of coincidences that don't just happen at the time Epstein was killed.
You are just blatantly wrong when making such strong claims about this not being Mossad. And it is plausible you are denying this because you want to help cover up for Mossad.
Given he was a notorious compulsive liar,
My experience when reading those among the Jews who I consider compulsive liars is that they are also braggarts to an extend. These aren't people who succeed by an ability to act in a manner that would never lead reasonable, moral, interested parties in uncovering the truth, but by using all the dark arts.
Obfuscate with bullshit and misdirecting, while friends up top help cover the issue up and censor inconvenient facts is part of the way to get away with crimes. Promote gratuitous insults and try to ridicule those those willing to think that 1 +1 = 2, and what smells and quacks like a Mossad or otherwise Jewish network operation, is in fact just that. Implicate enough people through blackmail as in the Epstein case. Try to make it a taboo to oppose blatantly criminal, and immoral acts and promote a mentality both within the Jewish community and outside of it, of people acting as collosal racist hypocritical extremists, that they side with the most depraved behavior, under a misplaced sympathy towards Jews. So moral corruption of nodes of society, and getting the corrupt to help cover such things and help the people behind Epstein get away with it by what they say, and what they don't say. Getting people to support whatever absurdity if it will be perceived as pro Jewish.
Criminals who rape children are not some sort of geniuses who wouldn't admit ever what they were doing. And it is also pretty fucking obvious that Epstein crew is a Mossad operation. Like Italian Mafia members sometimes reveal themselves, Jewish criminals are going to reveal information. As well of course, to be fair, we have people (like with other people involved with such activites) people involved with Israeli intelligence who have been willing to reveal some of what is behind the curtain and expose what Mossad is up to.
And you will of course claim that there is nothing to see here. There are people who both support such conspiracies and want people to not take them seriously and to ridicule those who do and have an interest in creating the perception of everything being imperceptible. In the real world however, we don't live in the darkness where such things can not be perceived at all and are unknowable.
The important thing to happen isn't just knowledge which itself is necessary but obviously we need to see shutting down such criminal networks down and to go after parties like Lauder and others involved, or credibly suspected to be such. Suspicions and acting on them, are a good thing and would have saved plenty of people from monsters like Epstein and his associates and handlers. Indeed, we do need both arrests and more investigations. One help bring the other, if implicated parties like mobsters, everyone involved is facing entire life in prison for being part of a criminal organization, or if groups like MEGA are themselves declared parts of a criminal organization, then you could have people singing to reduce the number of years they spent behind bar. More surveillance and putting in what should be suspected to be Mossad front, double agents working to bring them down (including in addition to non Jews, possibly some honorable Jews, who will try to take down the evil ones, in addition to those flipped due to not wanting to spend life in prison).
Blackmailing American politicians to change policy for example, could even expand to qualify the activities of groups throwing millions around to character assassinate politicians for not putting foreign interests above their own nation's , and furthermore it should be investigated if not only as we know ADL and AIPAC communicate and coordinate but whether such organizations are under communication and converge with agenda of people who blackmail politicians with criminal activity like the Epstein crew. These powerful Jewish NGOs have become a state within a state, at the same time Epstein types get away with blackmailing politicians, and the issue is stopped before going after the handlers. It is long time for this societal malaise to be shut down.
Alas, this mafia, is now more connected with the institutions that should be trying to stop them than the Italian mafia (which even tried its own version of the anti defamation league for Italians) was when it started getting destroyed in the 90s especially. Still there are things that could be done if one is interested in justice and isn't satisfied with the "nothing to see here and only an idiot would think otherwise!" routine.
I don't agree that self proclaimed mistake theorists are more motivated by the desire to get the correct answer, than to support their side. My argument is that the label is associated with a broader movement and views that for a very long time organizing in their groups, has been proclaiming its ideology as scientific, rational. And it is a movement that is about a shared belief system and tribal sympathies. A movement that has operated for quite a while, more than a century. A lot of blind faith and fanaticism. A lot of propaganda about how they are rational, the future, etc, etc.
This faith to their own righteousness and rationality, just cause isn't about the supernatural, doesn't mean it isn't a very deep and blind faith. This is a core dogma of rationalistic movements that are about specific ideological priors and specific ends, even where such ends could, or would be harmful. There isn't any strong tendencies for reexamination and internal change, in such situations.
The problem is that for people who tend to get right answers most of the time, their mistake theory is functionally indistinguishable from conflict theory in favor of "people who get the right answers more often than not" privilege (from the perspective of people who are wrong). Their correct answers oppress those who don't get things right, thus the need to redistribute their correctness, by force if necessary.
I agree that it is functionally indistinguishable.
As for them being on the right, imposing the truth to those who are wrong, that is an enormous issue. From a perspective of various religions, imposing their dogma, is imposing the truth against the ignorant and heretics.
To give in to the presumption that self proclaimed mistake theorists get it right will excuse their attempt to force their way to the rest of us, no? Movements proclaiming themselves to have it all figured out of rationalist type have existed since the French revolution with its cult of reason, and some of various different intensities. Not all are the same but all have strong shared elements. Their record has resulted in plenty of excesses and failures to put it in understated terms.
She is both a far left extremist who supported BLM and in height of violence saw the protests as necessary to continue to get more change, favored police decriminalization, open borders, DEI, Green New Deal and a mainstream Democrat. This republican anti Kamala video includes most of them except her BLM 2020 protests comments https://youtube.com/watch?v=bHlb0z1vZm8
How much backlash did Kamala face then or now for any of this? And how alone has she been?
This is what the Democrats are now. Maybe she is somewhat even more left wing than any random Democrat, but they are a far left party and the difference between Harris and other Democrats will not be significant as the default of liberal democrat politics has shifted to a more radical direction. It represents the 21st century type of far left which is of course different than early 20th century far left of orthodox marxism. Nor is this a constantly anti-establishment far left but a pro being the establishment far left.
As for the voters, I do think that there will be an attempt to fool the electorate by promoting her as a more moderate politician than she is. But the issue isn't X or Y random politician but a broader trend of a shift of the mainstream, and of the Democrats in general towards the far left.
There is an obvious bias by many against describing the Democrats as far leftists, under the fear of being perceived too partisan, or right wing. Suppose someone writes an article analyzing the election and the candidates, it would actually be their duty to properly inform people about where the parties and candidates stand and to talk about how far left the Democrats actually are.
Unfortunately, part of what it has been about in the original article and how it has been expressed has been to relate it with particular tribe and dogma and to be passive aggressive about other political tribes being conflict theorists.
I fundamentally don't agree with the positive idea that rationalists have about themselves.
So I see the way you define it to be part of a motte and bailey.
A mistake theorist believes that their opponent is making an error in reasoning, while a conflict theorist believes that their opponent is motivated to support their side.
But everyone is motivated to support their side. And in doing so, they tend to see others as wrong.
Rationalists who are obviously liberals who are animated by their dogma and priors, are just not truthful if they act as if they are only motivated by what is rational and correct. In fact it is quite an aggressive and arrogant move to make such strong claim and distinction, and it has been a core part of how it has been used. And we have seen the rationalist types including Scott Siskind get involved with all sorts of networks.
Indeed, I would suggest people to research the rationalist movement without looking just as this specific subset of rationalist movement. Which isn't that different from the general. All sorts of far leftists, marxists and liberals proclaiming their ideology rationalism, scientific has existed for quite a while in modernity. The trap in this movement has always been declaring their ideology scientific and their approach rational, bias and tribalism free, even though that isn't at all the case. Basically, rather than achieving what they claim to aspire, their presumptuousness of having done so and being dismissive of other valid perspectives like the ones you see in Scott's article that genuinely does that and associates conclusions about all sorts of topics with mistake theory or negatively with conflict theory (which is going to influence people, you can't strip that away), leads to a peculiar dogmatism that is unaware of itself. Which makes the movement arrogant.
That doesn't lead only to marxists and scientific marxism but even people like Karl Popper who end up becoming the mentors of people like George Soros.
Well, my point was that Scott and others following his template associate mistake theory with their preferred ideology and conclusions and conflict theory with groups they oppose. They attempt to paint a picture of correct views of a good mistake theorist and of bad conflict theorists. It is also about being sneaky and passive aggressive in diminishing opposing political tribes. This is an aspect of the whole issue that can't be ignored.
Another aspect about being a supposed neutral outside observer vs taking part in the issue as a motivated party with again a lot of pretending.
If both perspectives in proportion makes sense as part of a whole, why do you think the division of people at such categories and being one or the other, is legitimate? When the point in the way it is presented is that it is ideal to be a mistake theorist and falling down to be a conflict theorist. If we are to use only the more limited way you define it, which is far from all the baggage the term carries, shouldn't the ideal to be neither a mistake theorist, nor a conflict theorist and just have an accurate version of reality?
I'm a conflict theorist, and I think a technocracy is stupid. I'm happy to argue why at great length, but really all I'd be doing is pointing at the horrifying record of actual "technocracy" as it exists in the real world.
I am not a conflict theorist because it is simply one in the long line of labels meant to manipulate people by putting them in inadequate boxes. Like a lot of the phobes or isms. The goal is to get you to act in a certain manner, lest you fit into the negative misused label.
Mistake theorist is code for Scott's ideology for the most part in the way it is promoted in the article.
Also, the examples chosen are deliberate.
See:
Mistake theorists think it’s silly to complain about George Soros, or the Koch brothers. The important thing is to evaluate the arguments; it doesn’t matter who developed them.
There is a reason the names are George Soros (who Scott endorsed to have influence in Hungary) and Koch brothers, and not a controversial genuinely far right figure. and you actually won't see the people who in the text their preferences are constantly associated with mistake theory, separate that kind of people with the arguments.
I don't see why the idea that technocracy sucks must be explicitly tied with the "conflict theorist" concept and all the baggage it carries and can't be related with priors unrelated to that. Just cause it wasn't framed in that manner in Scott's article, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. And why being pro technocracy, is related to being a supposed "mistake theorist". Certainly technocracy supporters tend to not only have their vision of society but also consider those opposing their vision as enemies/opposition to be opposed. And the technocracy in practice has a certain identity, and preferences, which is related to how the people supporting technocracy see it to be. And it does crush people beyond its boot. This idea of the generalized technocracy for the smartest and best, is just an easy way to assume no direction. However, the people who support technocracy do have a direction in mind.
The concept is just a self serving rhetoric that helps Scott promote his political preferences and divide things in a way that encourages cohesion in favor of his political tribe and against others, by putting people in a box, associating rationalists and people who support similar stuff with mistake theory, and other groups with conflict theory, in a way that loses plenty of nuance.
Addressing the idea of people becoming conflict theorists instead of mistake theorists, I consider this an illegitimate way to divide people.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
That conflict theorist article is really bad. Its Scott naming what he prefers people to think on all sorts of views mistake theory and attacking other including valid and invalid perspectives as conflict theory. See where he talks about democracy, racism, technocracy, etc.
It isn't a legitimate road to being a fair minded truth telling person. It essentially means agreeing with what Scott Siskind wants, to avoid him sticking a negative label to you, and getting the positive label. And of course since then countless people have done that game of calling themselves charitable, nice mistake theorists and others who don't share their rationalist type ideology to be conflict theorists.
Other than that, it is too associated with Scott constantly making such associations with different views that makes you a mistake theorist vs a conflict theorist.
i.e. when he says:
Conflict theorists think a technocracy is stupid.
and many more of that vein.
I would just discard the whole concept, as an intellectual dead end and as an example of the negative part of politics. Being sneaky passive aggressive, with excessive intellectual arrogance where it is unwarranted and dismissing too much debate, to adopt a very limited worldview and to promote intellectual close mindedness and certainty where it is unwarranted and detrimental, based on positive and negative associations. Where Scott's goes so far as to directly call out specific assertions (like supporting technocracy) as mistake theorist or conflict theorist.
There is also no good reason to dismiss the value of conflict relations as a part of reality, including of those who are in conflict against you.
It isn't the high road to avoid the ugly side of politics, and it isn't a way to successfully be clear headed and avoid the fog. It doesn't promote such methodology that is independent of foregone conclusions, but rather promotes adopting uncritically Scott's perspective on various issues, and team and the self belief that in doing so you have already succeeded in being the good mistake theorist, instead of the bad conflict theorist.
As for the ugliness of politics, there will always be politics. And it will be influenced by those participating it. How ugly or good politics can be is not set in stone. Feedback loops of conflict of mutual escalation are certainly possible, and of mutual anger. But that has to do with what the arrangement is and what incentives there is for dominant rhetoric. Things are not as ugly as possible by default. For example, if my neighbor respects my fence, and tries to have a good relationship with me, we would have cordial relationships. Good relationship are about respecting important restrictions and red lines. If he constantly makes onerous demands, tries to steal my land on grounds of me having no right to it, demands me to house his relatives and pay for them, accuses me of being a bad guy who is bigotted for not giving in, well that is going to create an explosive relationship. I am going to be pissed off and angry too. I believe the solution to the ugliness of politics is to enforce and have dominant just norms. Which are quite different than manipulative one sided demand on the name of justice which causes problems. Anyway, if you find yourself in such a situation where you are dealing with such bad behaving people, then you can't escape an ugly situation.
Including by running away. But it is possible for the dominant political arrangements to be such that are less conflict inducing because the dominant moral priors and agenda, are such that doesn't temple over the sacred, much of which does have to do with national and religious self determination and existence. But there is often going to be an ugly side due to exactly that competition and will to gain over the other which often includes masquerading such agendas under nicer labels, or ideologies. Even though there is also a side of conflict that is for good, such as obviously self defense and plenty of grey zones. I don't think utopia is possible, but it is the case that with better type of politics, you can have less of negative things like conflict, prioritization of organized group minority interests at expense of common good because it benefits the party, narcissism over irrelevant differences, use of politics to destroy the communities of your outgroup and to destroy them as a people, etc, etc.
The idea that Haitians are superior to the people they replace fits the far left racial supremacist mythology but it is certainly not true. You would really love for places like Haiti and their people to be superior to white Americans.
I find it notable how far leftists like to push the myth of the native working class as degenerate, inferiors. Kind of shows an obvious downside of this migration since a core aspect of it is benefiting the foreigner, or those who benefit by lower labor cost, over the native, even in terms of actual redistribution, but also in terms of social freedom, community cost, two tier justice system, an agenda in favor of insufficient policing because of the desire not to police demographics like blacks such as the Haitians, and the desire to give a misleading picture, etc, etc.
Of course the American business elite who went along with the marxist BLM, and started discriminating against white Americans are not wise for what is the common good and we need to have a gatekeeping agaisnt far left capitalists, and hiring managers, CEO, just like we ought to against NGO, Bureaucrats, Politicians. Because these people abuse their power at the expense of society, to fulfill unethical and based on false premises and criminal, and racist anti-native and anti-white objectives. Additionally short term valuing of lower cost over other important concerns like, not destroying ones nation and community, not bringing populations to be favored over foreigners, violent crime, net welfare (obviously if you as a corporation use lower wage labor but the same labor gets paid by the goverment, there is a negative externiality and a tragedy of the commons).
Anyway, the attempt to destroy and replace a population while presenting them as inferior to the replacers and lying about it, is a completly treasonous and criminal agenda. Both to advocate, and of course far more so to do it. The remedy to this is to imprison and shut down the NGO and politician networks doing this and to make it a massive taboo for people to advocate this. Prioritize this as the moral issue for people to be condemned and suffer negative consequence, over the far right boogiemen. And of course business executives pushing for this, can themselves be targeted by the legal system as facilitating an invasion. Or being part of a criminal agenda to make the native Americans tm second class citizens. Or violating democratic representation by flooding communities that were never asked.
There is an enormous problem of too understated a reaction towards extremely destructive, hostile, treasonous agenda. Tied with also people who control institutions of influence and power, using censorship and trying to impose the respect towards a faction that defiles what ought to be sacred, and deserves in turn a proportionate harsh reaction. Trying to flood with foreigners in general is violating a sacred red line, but that is doubly so with violent ones from low IQ countries with massive problems. This is a red line that should not be breached, and severe consequences should follow for those who breech this norm. We need to reestablish a norm against such massive moral hazard and need to punish the obvious problem of massive racist oikophobia from the far left that joins in its attitude and in part invites for these purposes, foreign groups and foreign nationalists. In combination with this also promotes massive racial discrimination.
Anyway, Haitians if they are so good, should run Haiti well and even from a universalist perspective this is the superior course. Of course Haiti is not a success. But in any case good luck to them. The pretense of people who have it out against European Americans that they should replace the later because the Haitians are superior is nothing but a blatantly false excuse.
The sadistic hatred towards what ought to be your own people speaks for itself. Although it would be condemnable towards a foreign ethnic group as well because even towards foreigners you have a moral obligation not to support their destruction on the basis of their inferiority. In general but doubly so when you are distorting things. Of course, you have an even greater moral obligation towards your own people.
That this behavior exists with such predictability instead of people being too ashamed to display it, is precisely because people have failed to be sufficiently intolerant to it.
More options
Context Copy link