Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Before that Mike Lindell has been deplatformed and one of the target of the ire of the left wing establishment which includes plenty more rich people collectively working together than what Mike Lindel represents. Where their behavior is not held accountable.
There is no reason to consider this as an example of a bet taxing bullshit. That perspective would only merit entertaining if we see courts forcing liberal establishment figures, including in powerful corporations and NGOs having to pay large fines, or getting them to pay relating to technicality, including prove me wrong bets, to the extend there is some parity there.
Even this hitpiece article against him shows how Lindell has been targeted for his political opinions although they have a celebration paralalax line. https://www.newsweek.com/rise-fall-mike-lindell-1830372 and he has been banned from social media platforms and had other interference with his affairs https://www.axios.com/2023/09/22/mike-lindell-cellphone-seizure-court-constitutional
The message being given is that if you oppose us or support Trump, we are going to get you. And then throw a line of weak deniability. But it would be about your political opinions.
Moreover, the collective media hitpieces on this guy is just utterly horrible behavior. It seems that a culture of liberal voyeristic sadistic glee has developed where certain figures especially, and their general opponents become the afixed target. But especially there is a focus on particular individuals as a tactic to isolate the opposition. This culture definitely leads to increasing injustice and indifference to injustice, because the priority is "getting them" whether Trump, Lindell becomes a value that replaces actual moral principles.
This culture of feeling pleasure over the misfortune of the hated Lindell promoted by such media and such echochambers might be influencing your happiness at his misfortune.
Another issue to ponder, is what would happen if everyone who made claims about russiagate, election interference, supported riots, made destructive false partisan claims, not just politically incorect but including all political correct false narratives, etc, were targeted. Not to mention controversial issues that aren't cared about like supporting warcrimes, aggressive wars, and more. Who would be left of the political establishment?
Polling data clearly show that migrants are less libertarian and more left wing and that they are more supportive of the woke agenda than white demographic.
The current Democrat party and some republicans go along and greater share fail to oppose it, are very much authoritarian cultural far left/woke party. So even just voting for the current Democrats helps transform society in very radical ways.
We live also in an age of mass migration and illegal migrant. The bulk of the migrants are also poorer and greatly benefiting from subsidies from the goverment.
They are also incentivized to become even more so, since for the primarilly non white migrants this ideology plays into their tribalism against white americans. if you benefit from discrimination against another group and it treats your identity as a foreigner, migrant and descendands as special, then you are more likely to support it.
Same with restricting their speech to be critical and negative and opposing to identity groups the migrants come from.
Even successful groups within the USA like Indian Americans are shown through their responses in polls to very very culturally far to the left.
However the problem is even worse because mass migration aids the faction already in a country that has those politics and helps transform those who are closer to that, to become themselves more far left and authoritarian. Why? Because replacement is a key part of the agenda and its supporters are promoting it due to the logic of the replaced deserving it, being historical oppressors. Very directly connected with demonization, replacement in institutions and discrimination.
So the people supporting this thing either doing it overtly, or more subtly and especially in the past the more dominant form was of downplaying. While now we see more cellebration paralax and also being hateful directly. In any case, one idea crosses over the other. It is inherent within the idea of supporting what leads to the destruction of one group and replacement by other groups, that the replaced are less worthy/undeserving (of even their own inheritance) and the replacers more worthy of (gaining what was originally the inheritance of the replaced).
It is also the case that those supporting such mass migration are going to find themselves very directly racist/hateful allies which they are incentivized to downplay, because it will reflect poorly on them.
Cultural marxism is going to lead to more redistribution obviously with redistribution towards the poorer global south flooding in richer countries.
Additionally, it helps promote the idea of permanent left wing/uniparty transformation which makes the left more arrogant, authoritarian and more willing to trample over their outgroup's rights.
Your claims are contradicted by polling data.
Wokeness is not a recent phenomenon but a continuation and part of the new left which it self is a continuation of older agendas of groups like the frankfurt school and migrants are woke aligned, because part of this agenda is to support migrant groups at expense of natives and to see the others negatively as oppressors. An important part of this is also about specifically antiwhite racism and institutional discrimination. Which is part of public policy.
By denying this aspect of reality, you are aiding it. You can't oppose institutional discrimination in favor of nonwhite groups as it applies in the USA, which also relates to a preference for said groups, and from those groups taking more positions, if you downplay the issue.
Ethnic tension is part and parcel of the current liberal establishment which is about pandering to certain ethnic groups, and much of history before that and policies followed which are racially discriminatoy and oikophobic in nature.
Look, pretending that there aren't negative consequences and trade offs arising from your philosophy is a case in blind faith and denial here.
Secondly, what you are yourself promoting is itself an example of ethnic and racial tension. I am not sure how clearer I can be but the globalist who very arrogantly and fanatically supports the destruction of nations, denies the racist extremism that this faction has been promoting in policy is promoting ethnic conflict and has a racist position at the expense of native nations due to their disrespect of their rights. They take a side, they aren't neutral not participants. And they take a destructive side that steps overs others.
Especially if like you do, you are defending the collectivist tendencies of migrants and denying the issue and even downplaying the problem of collectivist racist sentiment and policies of the liberal establishment, pretending it is a smaller recent issue. You are rather close with the behavior of that establishment.
Not only is what you are promoting a source of ethnic conflict that you help do against certain ethnic groups in favor of migrants. But your faction's position would been even weaker and the liberal establishment would have been even more hostile to you if your libertarianism was of a different nature.
precisely because of how useful what you are doing is, to the far left where culturally it seems you agree with them that
a) migrants haven't done nothing wrong b) immoral natives resisting cosmopolitanism have no valid point and the disrespect towards them is easilly linked with collectivist coersive measures that have been happening of both hatred and discrimination and you have an incentive not to care about and underplay.
The reality is a pure libertarianism is rare, and what we see in practice is two bigger tendencies.
A) Neocons/regime aligned whose libertarianism is undermined by compromising with that and fusing with this ideology. This kind of faction is ironically aid to the system and helps bring greater authoritarianism but also helps by not only justifying and underplaying, or even promoting as dogma, the necessity of ignorance, but also by being silent about issues like private public partnership, the and attacking nativists.
B) A faction that has retained some compromise with some conservative moral aspects which I do think works better in promoting and conserving a freer society when one considers the trade offs with realistic options.
This faction most importantly, is willing to speak truth to power on the war machine, and also is more skeptical of mass migration, even some ancaps.
As an AnCap, I’m for the free flow of people across borders. But that’s only reasonably possible when you have a true free market and strict property rights. If you enter a country without money, where are you going to stay? If all property was privately owned, nobody would tolerate squatters. Which, incidentally, is becoming a big problem.
This website for example: https://www.lewrockwell.com/
Overall, I would say they do a better job of being pragmatic and prioritising the biggest threats to an orderly, free society, and even the greater sources of tyranical collectivism. While the neocon aligned libertarianism has compromised and allied with them and enables them
I still disagree with libertarianism but I am not anti libertarian in that I favor the opposite extreme. I just don't agree with the purity spiral that libertarians take on certain directions. Both the idea of doing that and how it works in practice on various issues. The reality is that the hardcore libertarianism it can't work that well, and it also has problems with factions that actually try to use power, either through impotence it will enable them, or it will side with them by what it prioritises and what it acts.
The authoritarian system has used the logic of libertarianism and regime alligned libertarianish types not to make society libertarian but as a loophole and excuse. Also because there is probably an insectuous relationship between NGOs, including ethnic activist NGOs, CIA, MIC, biggest corporations and the goverment.
So we see private/public partnerships being used to enforce an agenda in a manner that leaves very little room for dissent and transforms the world in a more totalitarian direction. One of anarchotyranny to be more precise where the logic of freedom and rights is promoted in excess for some, in a manner that is tyranical for others.
Where the regime aligned neocons or in part libertarians who have compromised with this, are transforming the world in this direction. Still, it wouldn't be surprising to see their footholds in any university to be removed by the authoritarian left wing faction that has been enabled.
There are still some differences on some issues.
I don't think there have been perfect libertarian societies out there, but I don't want to "no true scotsmen" fallacy myself. I do believe that going in a libertarianish direction is generally better. And I think port cities are generally in more of that libertarian direction, so I'm going to vaguely gesture to them and say I think they are better (especially compared to alternatives available at the time of their existence).
You refuse to even entertain that the idea that open borders will result in less libertarian direction is correct. You have shown that your ideology is motivated by prejudice and blind faith which is a great reason for the world to discard it, so it is ruled by what represents reality and not the prejudices of people who are being fanatical about their dogma.
If you want some existing examples of multi-ethnic cultures, look at them. Shanghai, Singapore, Alexandria, Rome, Mogadishu, Carthage, Athens, New York, Mumbai, etc. Many of these places were wildly rich and successful relative to other locations during the height of their trading.
Singapore is NOT following your policies but the opposite by a long shot since they have demographic controls so their society continues to retain demographic balance. Their immigration policy is about taking specific kind of migrants.
Athens didn't follow your policies neither. Being a port city doesn't fit that. Rome had cosmopolitan elements in certain periods but also was a different thing in different periods and its cosmopolitanism was of a different nature.
You have extremely radical politics here. Open borders is actually not going to lead to multi ethnic societies retaining an ethnic balance.
This idea that societies with some cosmopolitan elements, or port cities have had some success and therefore far more radical policies, or trying to make the entire world that, which lead to no limits on migration, is a case of you promoting something without adequate justification and not actually engaging, as in taking seriously the negative of that. Nor did multiethnic follow oikophobic policies while allowing migrants to have stronger tribal identities and tolerate ethnic identitarian organizations for them, and even as an establishment in a widespread manner as it is now, respected ethnic communitarianism for migrant groups.
Historically, assimilation is problematic and often didn't happen. But to the extend it did, it was greatly helpful for the foreign group being similiar, in small numbers over majority and having a dominant ideology which is pro assimiliation which is for them to abadon and not cling to their collective traditions and identities and adopt the traditions and identities and interest of the native group. Multiethnic societies often involved plenty of force and imposition from one group against other groups. There were also often in the process of transforming in one or another cultural direction due to these tendnecies.
Our order today is one that promotes and respects and tolerates tribalism for foreign groups, and favors a replacement, while promoting atomization for the native groups. This agenda looks more like a coalition invading other countries and conquering them. Like for example even the most archetypical example of nationalist boogieman the historical nazis, what you saw in certain cases where homogeneous regions invaded by a coalition of nations invading it, and different nations commiting themselves attrocities. This differs from a consistent promoting of lack of ethnic identity for any group which it self is very radical and would come with authoritarianism and such agenda is not unrelated to some of the horrors and excesses of the Soviet Union.
Historically, religion has been a more common divider among people than race.
The point is preserving one's group's and its rights over the hostile outsiders and also the threat of foreign hostile groups over the rights of native groups. But it is also a point about the idea that for a group to govern itself as it wants in peace, outsiders must respect that and keep their influence out. And vice versa. If there is say a department in a university that is of more a conservative/libertarian nature and demographics, that is related to precisely respecting that exclusion. Ironically, it is a part of pluralistic society too, to know to respect other peoples own thing.
You bringing this point up isn't really undermining this as religion can be a sort of ethnic identity or a part of it. But you refuse to even engage with the evidence of how agency problems and foreign oikophobia against a native people is an important component to tyranny.
Well, this tendency to not engage with the problem and such ideological rigidity is also a source of tyranny. For fanaticism for the cause of collective individualism and unwillingness to respect the problems with it, is going to lead to an attempt to impose this with force and to persecute dissenters.
Which isn't theoretical, a key element of our current authoritarianism is about imposing atomization on certain ethnic groups which isn't about opposing collectivism, but about them not opposing, or even identifying with the collectivism of other groups that the same system tolerates and promotes at their expense.
And of course good governance and not tyrannical governance should be wise and willing to reflect reality, not act based on following blindly an ideologically extreme dogma which is assumed to be correct by default.
A source of tyranny also has to do with going against the interests and rights of the majority of the people because you think your intellectually vanguard minority knows better. Hence, inviting foreigners is also related to getting people who are going to share such hostility and help impose such policies, including political correctness that sidelines and downplays problems. Which is highly consequential. The child trafficking crimes in the UK by Islamic gangs of mainly south asian descent was aided by a culture of cover up and downplaying, related to the politically correct racist sympathies of the oikophobic establishment.
The pro mass migration far leftists are being strategic. In the case of certain pro mass migration libertarians, they might get mass migration, but the end result will be a transformation of society in a less libertarian direction and more hostile to libertarian ideas. But the fact that regime aligned libertarians who are rather outspoken about agendas that are like the liberal establishment antinativist radical are actually people who have compromised with the regime, helps us understand them better than just an analysis that views these people as just quokas. But their usefulness to the regime comes with an expiration date.
I am not making a comment about whether you have friends of multiple races/ethnic background but that more movement of people without selection and of more diverse people in particular too results in woke people dominating. That good fences and borders make for good neighbors and helps protect existing groups from the influence of other groups. Which requires to be realistic about group behavior and to realize that others will see ethnic groups and other groups.
In practice your ideology can not survive under what it preaches that society should move closer towards. Also applies in regards to atomized ideological group which is in favor of atomized identity versus identitarian groups.
Its not clear to me how demographic controls would have "saved" me.
The diversity you describe in your friend group and the diversity that is happening are not exactly the same. Libertarian and conservative demographics are skewed in a certain direction and so the increasing diversity fuels authoritarian leftism. But the demographics of college it self is also an issue, it isn't just about ethnic/racial demographics.
You basically are continuing to be repeating the same fallacy of your ideology which is to ignore the systemic effects of your ideology/perspective in practice and focusing on whether you like your somewhat diverse friends, or a perceived benefit of choosing your friends.
But for now, and not for long, we can recognize "no, we aren't madmen conspiracy theorists, they are trying to tune the culture to be anti-White and the newest methods for doing that are simply not completely refined yet" is clear as day, and as clear as it's ever going to be.
Yes, one of the tragedies and injustices of our time is the lack of censorship towards the people pushing those false narratives, where the ideal would been to have a correcting world that people promoting falsehoods would lose their positions.
However, I disagree with your prediction. The centralization of power representing by woke A.I. is a GIGANTIC problem in itself. The A.I. safety crowd supports that and it is genuinely very naive and inversion of reality to expect rationalist crowd with influence there to help stop it, instead of help cause it. There isn't a rule they would attempt a more subtle method which rises to the level of Hollywood. They are going to reduce full 100% racial replacement immediately in A.I image generation, but I don't see any push for the A.I. to become subtle in its wokeness.
The only way forward that would stop this is for right wing goverment to criminalize this racist discrimination and the ideology it derives, and powerful organizations to blacklist it.
Which means strip of funding those who align with this ideology and necessitate they stand against it. This includes attempts by regulators to define noticing great replacement or opposing it as hate speech. Criminalize that criminalization, supress the limited hangout faction that tries to be sneaky in supporting this ideology and stop the accelerating far left tyranny which includes many people defining this uniparty which might claim to be centrist or conservative, falsely.
Stoping this would be more in line of justice and ironically for all their pretensions of antiracism, stopping the disrespect of white people and their rights is genuinely antiracist. And part of that would include condemning the moral bankruptcy of our weirdo bizzaro world definitions that anti racism is about the far leftists or ethnic chauvinists of Jewish, or black or whatever variety seeing their ethnic outgroup as having no rights as a group but only deserving to be atomized individuals, which would allow them as intended to be disrespected and replaced in all endeavors.
We live in an age of acceleration. Its like preaching before the Russian revolution that if you let the Bolsheviks take over by behaving with impotence, which is how the Russian elite behaved, you are going to get tragedy. What they propose and how far they are going to push things makes business as usual unlikely. So A.I. in its official use of the most major is going to be even worse than Hollywood. But we would also get some A.I. as with Gab that don't play by those rules.
However there is also a danger from far leftists (and others allied with this ideology who might not identify either to be subtle/subversive or for other reasons as far leftists) in power pushing more draconian laws that accelerates tyranny. And where tyranny of this nature is entrenched, something far nastier rises as a possibility as well of more deadly nature against the totalitarian's state's designed enemies.
Unfortunately, having been seduced and experienced a world with communism version one, rather than learning their lesson from history many world elites want to try and have gay race communism play out instead, and have history repeat it self like a farce.
Belisarius
.
7mo ago
Considering your pro open borders ideas, you see a microcosm of how that would work demographically! Dominated by non libertarians imposing their woke ideals.
Most of the university is your traditional state school. If anything, its a little more diverse than most state schools, because of where it is located. The Language department is still mostly as crazy as any other school. But instead of having to go anywhere to protest things, they just step next door and make trouble for conservative or libertarian econ speakers that they don't like.
Interesting.
I sympathize with actual conservatives or Ron Paul style libertarians there but you kind of are asking to be dominated by the more authoritarian left due to what you prioritize.
Considering how long the original post was, you don't have to go in detail, but can you explain some key ways that your own platform would differ?
I am not an American by birth, only by residence. I feel almost no loyalty whatsoever to America and am almost entirely happy to exploit it for my own benefit without feeling any sense of duty to it in return.
Proving who you call nativists had a point when they have wanted to exclude people from coming there because they wouldn't have the same sense of loyalty as natives. Since the common good of a country requires people who act based on a sense of duty towards others.
And I do not consider myself immoral for this. I do care deeply about certain Americans - to be precise, my friends and those I view as allies. And in that, I am very much American.
A pro exploitation attitute that doesn't see one having a duty to his fellow people is inherently immoral. You don't have limitless duty or unconditional to how they treat you, to ones country, parents, children, but you do have duties.
You also have duties even to foreign people and countries. Saying that any exploitation is fine, does itself passes a blatantly immoral line.
You can be loyal to your country, even if you don't feel affinity for far leftists due to the fact they don't feel loyalty to their country.
Also, you can care about people in some ways for what you have in common, even if you disdain them in other ways.
It is easier for me to not really care about people I disagree with strongly here since you are anonymous foreigners, but I actually do value some people in my life that I have strong disagreements with on political issues.
It is still true though that there is an inherent issue with a certain type of ideologue whose ideology make them actively very hostile to their own nation by origin. But it is a case of themselves excluding themselves from their own ethnic community by their own hostility, rather than nativists in all contexts caring about abstract differences over ethnic affinity.
Ethnic bonds matter to many people in a way that they don't to you.
To be clear, I think the idea that people don't have a duty to their country is immoral also for "foreign" countries.
It is simply not true that everyone treats the way you do nations as irrelevant and illegitimate.
I do like Americans on average and feel a good bit of loyalty to certain specific ones who I am friends with but of course, I feel no loyalty whatsoever to the US government or to any abstract notions of "America".
The goverment is one thing, but the notion of X is its people. I would say that there is an inherent value to duty of doing things and also avoiding from doing (as in exploiting) people outside just one friends. And an individual who is part of an ethnic community benefits from this. It is friendship on a broader level.
A society made of people who feel a connection and a duty for each other is benefiting from them having said bonds and that is a good thing for them, no matter how irrational you find those feelings.
Now, I advocated that nationalism should respect other nations so we can have international peace so there are limits relating to ethnocentrism. Still ethnocentrism is a good thing, just one that shouldn't be limitless. The alternative to nations you represent is worse with the only thing to its supposed credit the idea that you find the ethnic bonds and the reciprocal duties as irrational.
Considering what is lost, it is a bad trade off.
I myself am not advocating for the moralistic argument and am quite content with leaving things at the selfish argument level, I'm just pointing out that US nativists could only be consistent by either grasping the selfish argument and abandoning moral ones or by advocating for non-interventionism.
Two wrongs don't make a right. So you should still have a problem with those supporting exploitation even if, which isn't the case, all the nativists supported immoral interventionism.
This is a false argument when not all groups have valid claims to being negatively affected by American interventionism.
Moreover, the enormous amount of western help towards African countries should matter.
I do think that someone who is an American nativist but does favor the USA screwing over non Americans abroad, is being selfish and morally hypocritcal. Although in a selfish manner their argument that nativism is in their own peoples interest has its validity.
It seems you have found this as an argument to use against nativists but aren't interested in the issue whether you are morally obligated to not just use it as a gotcha but ought to oppose the neocons and interventionists yourself.
Belisarius
.
7mo ago
Even if Christians were to count as a quasi ethnic group, they are one that is more integral to American-ness.
On the opposite side a Muslim is a more foreign identity.
This isn't to say that prioritizing Christianity too much can't be even be considred treasonous to a country. For example someone supporting open borders with Christian countries that would result in the replacement of the people with foreigners.
Belisarius
.
7mo ago
Wanting influence is one thing, living there is another. And even in that only some kind of influence. I am not an American for example and I don't see anything immoral in trying to influence American foreign poilicy against doing evil imperialist shit (and laudible for non Americans to prioritise opposing evil policy at their expense) but it destroys all boundaries and nuance to see all kinds of behavior as acceptable. I don't see why USA owes Somalians to let them go there and act as foreigners.
America owes itself to not let foreigners exploit its people. And it is immoral in general to support said exploitation, not a case of you having a point about nativists not having a sound moral reasoning.
Another thing to consider is the enormous amount of western help that goes to African countries.
And also that what you are doing here is being quite convenient for those who both like to invade the world and invite the world. Why not oppose both? I have noticed many of the liberals of this world and including in this forum have failed to be louder in opposing the neocons crowd. In a manner that is disappointing for someone who experienced them opposing the Iraq war as I also did at the time.
Anyway, it is interesting that you are an American who finds nothing immoral about non Americans exploiting Americans. Someone might even describe this attitude as a treasonous attitude and it won't be an uncharitable exaggeration. In actuality those who are uncharitable and booing as their outgroup, those who have standards and try to enforce them, would be incentivizing immorality in favor of exploitation.
Countries ideally should neither be invading the world, not letting themselves be exploited by the world. Something has gotten seriously wrong with the kind of people running things if you have reached that place. Combining pathological altruism with destructive imperialism is like having the worst of both worlds. Someone is winning in this process and it includes various lobbies, war manufacturers, the contractors, the state department.
Obviously the Palestinians haven't started this conflict in October 7th and there was plenty of something before this. So the way you frame it is completely inaccurate. Of course, I am not someone who is as biased for Palestinians as those I criticize are for Jews, but I do have to defend them when they are under destruction. Frankly Jews and Palestinians living separately (and freely) in their own homeland and keeping out of each others affairs would be the sane ethical way to go.
This would require Jews to stop doing plenty of "somethings" against the Palestinians and respect the group rights of other groups.
While much of war is going to be ugly, there are different levels to this. There is a difference between fanatic supremacist warmongers trying to destroy other ethnic groups and take over their homeland and other ways to conduct yourself. It is excusing warcrimes to say that war is this always. The rhetoric of Israeli politicians and their actions shows that this is about ethnic cleansing through violence and death, starvation, destroying peoples homes.
In the case of Israel, I have no doubt that without the attention of people putting pressure, that Israel's leaders in line with their rhetoric and those who support the already war criminal conduct would have pushed things far further. On the other side, those who have been apologists for this conduct have stained their hands. Israel would have done even less with a less favorable environment in the USA especially.
Here the world is watching and they are reacting entirely differently than your propagandistic Jewish supremacist framing which is why lot of the world wisely has become much more negative against Israel. https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-global-opinion/
And we see a change to negativity towards Israel even in countries like the UK with a significant Jewish lobby that have also have been harmed by Muslim extremism as well which would give them less reason to sympathize with the Palestinians.
By historical standards all sorts of mass murderous attrocities are not abnormal, including genocides. As is rhetoric of people calling such conduct as not abnormal to justify and excuse it. It is definitely a disgusting atrocity of ethnic cleansing through mass murder, complete obliteration of the homes of the Palestinians, inducing policies to starve them.
Considering the starvation it is mass murder in the process of becoming genocide if one takes a higher standard for genocide. Or already qualifies as a genocide if one considers the mass murder that already has happened as qualifying.
Also, obviously all this attempt to understate terms and it would be too late if the numbers of dead keep on pilling, in line with what Israeli politicians want. Not to mention all the people who have lost limbs.
The reality is that the treatment of Jews in WW2 is brought precisely to justify the murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by people who certainly prove in that regard that we should be careful with our sympathies for bad actors would use them to justify vile warcrimes. It would be more sensible to not be manipulated to obsessing about Jews from 80 years ago and be diverted by that from confronting those committing or supporting the warcrimes of today.
This whole thread gives her an opportunity to discuss Jewish suffering and compare it to Palestinian. She indeed directly downplays the violent murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by comparing it to deportation of migrants.
Further bellow she is debating the holocaust as she knew SecureSignals would bite the bait. And most importantly others would jump in the opportunity to show how serious they take this issue.
She recently argued that Williamson was right that white working class communities of the type that voted for Trump deserve to die. And she definitely supports atrocities against Palestinians and their ethnic cleansing.
Cimarafa is definitely a spiteful individual that wants to dish it out and while she promotes destruction and condemnation for other groups promotes sympathy for Jews, accuses others of antisemitism and so on.
The Holocaust would appear to be more congruent with Hitler’s writing, ideology and deeply-held worldview than the absence of the Holocaust. Nowhere does Hitler express any empathy or compassion for the majority of the Jewish population that would suggest he was not content for them to die.
The same could be said for the rhetoric of various Israeli politicians towards the Palestinians.
Whatever the actual numbers the nazis conduct against various ethnic groups during the war was murderous. They also enslaved for labor plenty of Europeans and Jews too. It isn't accurate that AFDs plans are equivalent with the nazis agenda even under the framework of many revisionists. Whether towards the Jews specifically, or other populations. It is fair to say the nazis commited genocides against multiple ethnic groups.
Actually the use of nazism as a propaganda towards Europeans is unethical also because the Nazis mistreated the people of plenty of European countries. But of course before the nazis and during and after them, other evil factions existed with a negative agenda against Europeans who even milked antinazism to justify themselves and demonize Europeans. Including those who suffered under the Nazis.
One could well argue that the antifa type of faction, which in fact shares some of the worst pathologies that nazism had, has in fact an agenda quite more destructive than even the nazis. And this applies especially when it comes to Europe. So I would say that if you are more hostile to Europeans than even the nazis, then you should not be allowed to have any influence and say about Europe.
In regards to AFD, some level of repatriations is a moderate response for their own survival that has been forced upon European nations by the extreme "destroy Europeans" faction which tries to promote as fait accompli the extinction of European ethnic groups. And of course there is the issue of those who migrated, illegally but "legalized" or legally, and got a paper saying they belong in said nation while are contemptuous of the native people and see the process as a conquest and are happy for it, and support discriminating against the natives, denying them their nationhood, and bringing more foreign settlers. Fundamentally, homeland's should be made mainly by their own people and minorities that respect the native majority and are tolerated in turn and through small numbers and intermarriage there might be some assimilation.
Too large numbers and too much hostility and the assimiliation goes to the other way towards the postnational state for the natives to be oppressed and destroyed and as a homeland for the conquerors. There are always trade offs when it comes to human rights and different nations, and this is the way that results in the least trouble and mutual respect of the rights of different nations to existence. And preserves world diversity of different nations, over say the world being dominated by the more fertile blacks, or a coalition of foreign groups who subsequently transform the west more in line to south africa. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/diversity-is-good-actually
The Nazis conduct was of a more imperialist, genocidal nature in general at expense of non German populations under their control, so it isn't productive to compare AFD suggestion to that. In fact it can aid the conduct of anti-Europeans and help create a narrative that reverses the victim with victimizer. Which in this case the victimizers are those trying to destroy European nations.
The USA has committed its own atrocities in the past. When it comes to the war against Japan, the Japanese had their own murderous empire.
What is the point to bring them now but to excuse new warcrimes? At some point bringing WW2 constantly to justify new wars being started, or actual warcrimes such as Dresden kind of undermines the moral legitimacy of WW2 itself and should make us question whether the people doing this were also acting with self serving motives then too. Especially since the Nazis and Japanese were condemned for being warmongers and imperialists.
Is WW2 a permanent card to excuse starting wars and committing attrocities rather than a historical episode that should make us oppose such bad behavior?
There is also a genocide that happened against German civilians after the end of WW2. So by this logic, you could justify the most depraved behavior.
At some point this milking of WW2 to excuse warcrimes is behavior that is similiar to the nazis using the communist atrocities (including against ethnic Germans) as a means of legitimizing their future attrocities.
Rather than deflecting responsibility towards the past USA, we should focus on the now and judge morally Israel's actions. What we will see is an extreme racist supremacist goverment that dehumanizes a population and wants to conquer its land.
The same population that they ethnically cleansed in the past, in violation of the expectation of initial promises by zionists when they were promoting their project that they would respect the Arab inhabitants of the place. And in addition to this, of course they also promote culturally genocidal propaganda denying the Palestinians their nationhood. Unsurprisingly this is related to also to the project to violently ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land, as well as as it is always the case with such rhetoric. The people who don't exist, can more easily be made to not exist.
It is unreasonable to compare any repatriation of migrants in European countries to their homeland to what is happening to the Palestinians. The mass murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own homeland is analogous to similar historical behaviors of genocidal ethnic cleansing done by many regimes including the Soviet one.
Also, it is immoral for you to keep bringing up Jewish suffering when you promote the take how white Christian communities of Trump supporters deserve to die and support attrocities against Palestinians.
Fundamentally dead Jews from 80 years ago matter less than currently dying Palestinians, because we should care about current events and the past has passed.
Another thing to consider is that Jews in modernity not only suffered but also participated in causing suffering to others. Both as part of the communist movement but also as part of race marxist movements that supports the destruction of western civilization and its people, vilifies them and promotes one sided extreme propagandistic grievance that falsifies history.
The attempt by Jews to impose a Jewish supremacist ideology, makes some of the whining about insetivity to be particularly disingenuous. And this is why this taboo you are trying to take advantage is completly in bad faith and we need the opposite taboo against those trying to manipulate history in this manner.
Empathy towards the Jews is manipulated for purposes of elevating Jewish lives above non Jewish lives and to support screwing non Jews.
This milking of history by people who want to manipulate others to empathize with them while they are racist supremacists themselves ought to stop. So we actually ought to be punishing propagandists using Jewish suffering in such a manner to justify stripping groups from their rights. Or to promote a general dishonest narrative of one sided historical victimhood that justifies Jacob ruling over Esau.
Also important to decriminalize discussion of historical facts even if we ought to make it as taboo as possible if not criminalize using Jewish suffering or slavery to demonize Europeans in general and strip them of their rights. This is to say discussions about facts should be free, but overly milking such events should not be a free action.
Even excessive amount of holocaust, slavery films is suspect, but how things are framed and what narrative they promote is also important. The narrative of Jews as oppressed group that are chosen by God and God's will it to destroy other nations is one narrative that must be condemned and not promoted.
Rather than stopping machiavelian grievance merchants who promoted such narratives for destructive purposes, we had people siding with their crocodile tears about how they are victimized by racists.
Anyway, a moral goal is to stop the grievance merchants and to put different nation states on an equal playing field in regards to certain rights. Including the Jews. Rather than using say their history with communism, or the oppression of Israel towards Palestinians to claim that Jews should have no homeland neither.
So my favorite end result is fairer towards the Jews than your end result towards your various outgroups. So there is an inconsistency here.
Jewish supremacists who want it all at the expense of other ethnic groups such as the Likud faction are kind of paid by the same currency if they are responded to by people who want from the river to the sea a state only for Palestinians. Just like Netanyahou wants from the river to the sea only Israel.
So compromise is a good idea but it can't be a one way street by people who want to promote maximum sympathy for themselves while not respecting at all the rights of others.
Nevertheless for us who want good and moral outcomes, we should pressure the worst behaving faction with power who are destroying their opposite ethnic group on the ground. And we ought to not respect whatsoever such manipulations.
There is a reason why so many countries worldwide including countries that have nothing to do with the middle east like Japan have such a negative view of Israel. It's because the lie that people react negatively to bad Jewish behavior due to them being racist is wrong, and Israel is abusing human rights of Palestinians in a despicable manner that deserves condemnation.
The key factor, then, in whether an expulsion is or is not liable to become a genocide / mass murder is whether the people in question have an ancestral homeland or other ethnostate with the same religious, cultural and ethnic background capable of absorbing them (even if this might be annoying, expensive or politically divisive).
Of course not. The key part of whether mass expulsion is genocidal is if it is done through mass murder. And indeed mass murder, the goal to induce starvation and horrible circumstances to Palestinians, as well as destroying their homes is part of this violent ethnic cleansing.
It is definetly a warcrime that those who support paint themselves in some of the most negative colors.
Also, it is especially immoral to expel people from their homeland and Palestinians homeland is Palestine.
This is about racist supremacist Jews wanting greater Israel. What would be more in line with justice would had been for them to try to agree with a compromise with the Arab world and Palestinians that took seriously both Israeli security and Palestinian statehood that respects Palestinian human rights. This compromise would have come after past mass murderous ethnic cleansing and occupation. So even that would be a big compromise for the Palestinians.
There is a fundamental difference from resisting colonization in your own land by foreigners that leads to your entire destruction as a people (which is unsuprisingly supported by a movement that demonizes your history and people and discriminate against it and that is an important reason why they favor your destruction), to expelling people from their own country to take it for yours. Also, the movement against Europeans milks and utilizes past Jewish suffering against Europeans. And even promotes propagandistic narrative of Jews as historically the inoccent victims who never didn't do nothing, all antisemitic slander and Europeans as the permanent evil oppressors.
The behavior of both Jewish migrants in Israel and of Palestinians in how they are polled and even how they behaved in places like Lebanon is actually indicative of the problems of foreign colonizations.
The one thing both groups have in common is they should not be trusted to rule over others fairly, and shouldn't be destroyed neither.
The world does have an interest in suppressing the more sociopathic elements from being leading those communities. More so for the Jews due to being more influential worldwide. Especially outside their country. Such as suppressing those more narcissistic, sociopathic factions and individuals from destroying and mistreating foreign ethnic groups and having power over them. Also there are non Jews who have been influenced into being Jewish supremacists who favor the destruction and oppression of non Jewish ethnic groups and share the same pathological extremism, including the hypocricy of pretending that they are against "racists", when they are the worst ones and people are correct to oppose them.
So there is an interest in changing the prevailing ideology among Jews and having them be less self serving. But really, what can observe when looking at the history of Israel, Jewish mega ngos and groups of billionairs connected with people like Epstein and Mossad like MEGA, polls and behavior is that there has been a continuous core element of Jewish establishment which has been Jewish supremacist against other ethnic groups and organized to use their power against them. And the Jewish community has had some sympathy for that. But there has been also some divergence which was reduced as that establishment got them in line. Crisis is used to get Jews in line, since they have absorbed a mentality of the inoccent martyr.
If that establishment is broken and Jewish elites are both moderate at Israel and in diaspora, less influential abroad and also the dominant non Jewish elites who would be influential worldwide are moderates, and I consider you the opposite of that then a greater bulk of the Jews would behave morally, as they are subject to moderate memes that promote the idea that the rights of Jews/non Jews end where each others begin.
That we even allow Jewish supremacists to promote their propaganda and to be a faction acting freely is a mistake. We well know by now that it is a faction that is fanatically spiteful, totalitarian, greedy, cruel, dishonest and ruthlessly destructive. It should be a faction that is suppressed and condemned.
The connections of liberalism and communism is a more real phenomenon than the altright being liberal. Although it is true that some dissident rightists are in part of a certain kind of liberal.
But of a different type than modern liberalism which is part of the new left and has stronger cultural marxist dna.
here is a thoughtful discussion about liberalism that raises the issue of how it relates to communism.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j2AFw6EW1bw
In regards to the success of liberalism it does have to do with a heavy dose of authoritarianism, and dogmatic adherence.
And authoritarianism for progressivism of what is the current trend. Just as USSR was considered the dictatorship of progressivism, modern liberal democracy fits within that paradigm increasingly but of what is the current version of progressivism.
People like Fukuyama have been defending all sorts of authoritarian moves. Modern liberal tribe is not the tribe of Greenwald.
To the extend that liberalism is about neutrality of institutions, a free marketplace of ideas, respect of rule of law, equal and consistent application of rule of law or even liberal nationalism and national self determination, or respecting freedom of assocation/speech in the fundamental degree, seeing oppositional politics where the right wing opposition is allowed to exist, all that has been eroded.
To the extend that it is about opposing corruption and capture of power by ethnic lobbies, or big weapon manufacturers (some of the biggest donors of thinktanks), or intelligence agencies, or neocon families as permanent bureocrat aristocracy, again we see a failure.
To the extend it is about disempowring warmongers whose actions are against international law, again we see that modern liberals as a tribe are failing.
Of course the reality is that from the very existence of the French revolution there have always been a significant element of extremism. And the problem of the dominant ideology of a society leading to fundamentalist extremism and theocratic totalitarian society is also at play, and involves more than just liberalism.
My conclusion is the ideological fanaticism for progress and liberalism leads to an ideology that is destructive and even erodes some of the possible virtues associated with liberalism. But this association like any religion that promises utopia and associates itself with goodness is something that true believers promote. But the whole concept is motte and bailey at its substance, for part of the success have been discrimination against non liberals, and also associating with liberalism the warmongering imperialists, the racist supremacist ethnic lobbies, the authoritarian Saul Alinsky fans (such as Hilary Clinton), or those who collaborate with people like Bill Ayers.
The mixture of some restrained liberalism with conservatism and nationalism works better but has failed to gatekeep and stop the more far left faction.
While liberalism as an ideology is flawed but some part of it in combination of non liberal tradition, can create something that works better in combination than any other element in isolation, the tribe of liberals is different. They fit within what I criticize more so than ever before. While in the past in addition to more new left types, some people who called themselves liberal, might have fitted more in line with a more moderate syncretic tradition, this is hardly the case with today mainstream liberalism. Ironically, the marginalization of liberal tribe in favor of those of a more syncretic tradition would also lead to a society that does succeed more (but never absolutely as they are utopian and flawed) in some of the promises of liberalism I mentioned that modern liberalism completely fails at.
But this was also the case historically. The counter revolutionaries promoted better functioning and freer societies than the radicals of French revolution. East European countries that blacklisted communists and had an ideology that combined conservative, traditional, liberal elements worked better than the current cultural marxist new left paradigm or the communist one.
While there is some value to aspects of liberalism and the correct response to throw the dirty bathwater without the baby, the ideology of what happens as liberalism purity spirals and is called liberalism still or "liberal democracy" or "peoples democracy" deserves no preservation but to be thrown to the dustbin. While many of the people who became aligned with modern liberalism due to the reasons I mentioned in the first part of the post will join the new reigning ideology if the new left/cultural marxist/modern liberalism starts losing influence. Even with all the institutional capture there is still sizable backlash, precisely because it doesn't work well. Where people of the tradition I favor, appoint likeminded people in positions of power this works to promote an ideology more in line with that. For example Orban and Hungary. The issue now is that the new left/modern liberal types are acting more aggressively worldwide and have captured significant power in the USA.
But it isn't a done deal and there is nothing inevitable or unique here that is different to any historical examples people who are loyal to X or Y ideology/religious sect being possible for them to either capture power, or fail to do so, based on the circumstances. It does seem that messianic thinking helps movements to capture power. Specifically the part that is about the movement bringing the world at the stage of utopian end of history and bringing forth the messianic age where people are saved. Although liberalism seems to have multiple figures and the ideology in general as the messiah, and also larger groups as the bringer of salvation, rather than one central figure. With the liberals themselves and various intersectional groups as the Messiahs and redeemers.
So if you were in Abbot's position what would you do in response to the illegal migration crisis promoted by the Biden regime?
And anecdotally his fundraising emails are talking a lot more about state sovereignty than normal. It led to a twitter breakdown by Gina Hinojosa(head of the Texas democrats) accusing him of being a secessionist, and the admittedly low chance of Gina Hinojosa of all people meming Texas independence into the political mainstream through the power of negative partisanship is kind of hilarious.
If the federal goverment supports illegal migration then that legitimizes greater authority for the states. Unlike seccession, this is compatible with federalism provided the federal goverment are run by people who actually oppose mass illegal migration, as is their duty to do so. If not, there is still not seccession and if anything, Texas would be making the rest of their country a favor. But there is an evolution into greater exercise of power of the states and less sovereignty of the Federal goverment. Or it could be about the dominant ideology of those in control of it. If their agenda is like the current Biden administration, the states actually behaving more like the primary goverment would be the natural, reasonable evolution. A case of the mandate of heaven passing to those willing to behave in accordance to their duty towards their people. Of course this implies a duty to impeach Biden, and his officials who are following the criminal conduct in favor of mass illegal migration.
The way the law is seen should evolve in response to the circumstances. If the federal goverment is run by extremists who are willing to trample over rights and impose their way then (even more than the past) more state sovereignty should be something that conservatives support. Then this ideological evolution should affect both trying to exercise power in terms of executives and in terms of conservatives in the supreme court.
In that whole post a decent amount of space was taken by me articulating how left wing certain conceptions of centrism have been. A key part of left wing propaganda, especially starting in the 90s with Tony Blair and even the Clintons was to pretend to be centrist while being radical in a left wing direction. This conception of centrism and moderation is a falsity. It doesn't represent being at all in the middle on the most important issues. Nor even having a centrist position in how one treats different identity groups. Nor even on how one responds on problems.
For example, if ones response to massive fertility crisis is to not give a shit, and to worry about not going too far with social conservatism, that isn't a centrist position. Maintaining an ideology of very limited criticism the left wing social revolutions is what actual in real life leftists I know do. Easy to get several of them to say how they oppose feminazis but a toned down feminism is good actually and so on, and so forth.
As I said:
The generally reasonable dissident right figure Auron Macyntire is correct about liberals. That a subset of them when other progressives are unwelcoming, or they disagree on their pet issues like say Israel, they turn to the right but they don't think they have done anything wrong. They want to run the right in accordance to their own values while looking down on right wingers. And of course they start gatekeeping and deplatforming actual right wingers and preferring people like them.
and
We also see these figures try to do the same with "centrism" and define themselves as the only moderates and centrists and everyone who disagrees with them as an extremist. Even though in practice their social views, or views on immigration, or on how much they sympathize with various identity groups are far left. Even if some other progressive extremists are further left than them. If you don't define what is centrist by the last couple of years, and by what leftists who run media define as centrist and moderate and what they define as far right. Any longer term outlook realizes that actually the dissident right, part of what they are pushing were more pervasive and dominant in the past, and we have had a radicalization in the recent past. It would be a welcome development for that to be corrected. Moreover, we should also care about how some trends in politics that have been in influence for a couple of decades have evolved today, and their observable effects.
If you are a centrist, then that leaves little room for actual centrists.
Maybe I should have had a line or two about how these people who present themselves as centrists tend to also often try to reprsent themselves as anti woke liberals.
The point articulated is that your differences with other leftists aren't sufficiently important on some very important issues! That there is still isn't enough representation of a different perspective than that. It was right there in the post, so you should have respected that. Unless you try to censor this view and in an authoritarian manner try to impose the view to accept your claims of "centrism" even though you claim to be a type of liberal.
The liberal agenda is to support replacing western nations and treating them as illegitimate. This is a far left ideology. One that the disagreement against is either the dominant view of right wing base, or as in various european countries is the dominant view of the people of the country.
If different varieties of cultural marxist ideology is pervasive in certain circles, those who belong in groups that show such groupthink should admit that there is an echochamber problem when criticised on those grounds.
You support mass migration and you go along with that. Say you will be voting the Democrats which are extremely far left on culture/identity. Dehumanized Palestinians and supported their destruction which isn't really classical liberalism nor shows any real libertarian tendency. Neocons are however firmly a part of the liberal tribe. Part of modern liberalism is this machiavelianism.
In actuality the ADL type of progressive who is a Jewish supremacist, is one of the ways to be a progressive and the more establishment friendly type in the USA. You align close enough to that, even if you don't go as far as people like Jonathan Greenblat. Although considering your willingness to support extreme violence against the Palestinians, we shouldn't take at face value any claim of you respecting rights or freedoms. Just like you do that on the basis of your view of Jewish superiority, an ideology of Jewish superiority over white working class, can lead to someone like you articulating taking more of their rights, or hate speech laws.
In terms of ideology, classical liberalism didn't exist in the way modern leftists say it does. Historically supposedly classical liberal societies had laws against indecency, and were societies that tried to balance promoting a moral order, conservative and pro religious norms, obviously nationalism of some kind is a key aspect of any society that is made by a people with some liberal mores and political liberalism.
Hell, many of the people using that term classical liberal aren't even classical liberal in the term of willing to tolerate and support institutions showing genuine neutrality, and promoting equality under the law. They are unwilling to support the removal of say civil rights act. They tend to be simply leftists who want a limited hangout to aspects of the most recent far leftism and are unwilling to dismantle the current system which is one which acts as a hateful foreign conqueror in that:
It discriminates against a people. It spreads propaganda that defames them while elevating other ethnic groups and their grievances. Resentful Indian grievances are part of this It treats their rights are illegitimate. It renames their heritage, their monuments, their schools. It removes them from their own history, and in both present and past replace them.
To be fair, at some point the dinstiction between leftism or neoconservative is hard to define. Since people like you, who fit more under the neocon label both have far to the left views and are part of this but also tend to combine some views that are more associated with extreme far right. Someone who defines himself as a liberal and calls for the replacement of the white working class such as Bret Stephens still tried to promote HBD in New York Times. A certain racial supremacist ideology, can be compatible with supporting a left wing globalist empire, if one doesn't buy into the false notion that such people are consistent anti-racists. Resentful people who hate others and like their favorite groups have been a key part of the left wing project.
The reality is that there is enormous crossover between progressive, neocon, liberal, and you fit mostly in the neocon category. It misleads rather than provides understanding to see a hard distinction between these. It rather creates irrelevant debates between people who aren't sufficiently different and manufactures consent to a cohesive ideology that is shared by promoting a very limited overton window.
It is a fiction and grossly misleading to buy into you being a classical liberal.
It is true that you have some differences with other progressives, but these tend to be either a limited hangout, or a case of you aligning more with one faction of progressive far left extremism and helping them perpetuate their code switch propaganda of presenting themselves as moderate, as a means of isolating that type of the left and controlling it, while also controlling the opposition to it. We also see people who are extremely racist in favor of Jews and destructive against non Jewish ethnic groups to try to define moderation to be about having this racist ideology. In general the ADL it self and others who do have this ideology often pretended to support freedom of speech but weren't honest about it. Why should I take someone who supports such extreme destruction of an ethnic group of Palestinians because of your sympathies of the Jews, as someone who will at all oppose anything directed against other groups that Jewish supremacists hate?
On some of the most important by far issues, there is group think dominating. And it seems to be the case with zionism as well. The reality is that when you try to shut down and don't encompass at all any reasonable views associated (in a media landscape dominated by left wing extremists) with the far right, you have this group think.
And if you try to incorporate into your liberal ideology the idea of the supremacy of the Jews and that colonialism can be good, this neocon ideology is fully in line of a global left wing american empire and much of progressivism. By incorporating into it fucked up unreasonable aspects of far right ideology in this manner, you actually aren't acting inconsistent with the history of leftism. Which did share elements of extremism with non leftists, including extreme nationalism for their favorite groups while selling extreme antinationalism for their disfavored. So this was in a left wing direction.
It represents one faction of it in fact. For it is also a mistake to pretend that the ADL faction represents "liberals" while the faction that is more hostile to Israel and see Jews as also white oppressors, represent "progressives". It is substantially the same ideology with a different who/whom. In your case, you seem to be even more of an HBDer and yes less far to the left than ADL, but not sufficiently so for your representation to break the group thing, rather than reinforce it.
To conclude, as i said in my original post for the general phenomenon, not just on motte differences exist, but not sufficiently so for there not to be exist a dominant strain of liberal ideology. There is one who does have a different ideology that breaks from this. Any space that has a mixture of neocons, progressives, supposed libertarians who seem libertarian on the outside and neocon on the inside where push comes to shove (to contrast with a Ron Paul type of libertarian which is a more right wing type), do not show sufficient dissent to the globalist american empire ideology and of the liberal consensus. Especially if people fit more with a specific subgroup of said liberal faction.
Since there has been an attempt by left wingers after expelling right wingers from institutions and discriminating from them, to define their views as moderation, this is also something to be recognized here. A general culture of being too prideful about any dissent from the left has also developed. Either one sides with this attempt to deceive the public and buys into a false view of the world, or takes both a more long term outlook and an outlook that focuses on actually examining how far someone aligns with or against various groups, or positions. It isn't just a definition game. Conservative parties when liberals got control of them, while treated by people of different varieties of liberal as moderates, have in fact promoted far left policies. The most typical example of this are the British Torries after Cameron, but the template continues to be followed in other cases. Recently in Poland we have seen predictable authoritarianism. Moderation is not something that can be trusted, but we have observed the opposite. That repeated observation tells us what to expect instead. And what a faction ends up doing and behaving like, and even some of their rhetoric, tells us more accurately what they are about than how they sometimes frame themselves in a more moderate direction.
The very existence of any alternative that is moderate or gasp right wing, requires accurately understanding reality and how much of a commonality and extremism there is among different shades of liberals.
No, I don't think they are 'Black nationalist' in a meaningful way. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority are not advocating for an exclusive 'Black America' based on race, they are advocating for equality of outcomes in (what they see as) a biased system. I also would dispute the language you use to describe them, although without examples (beyond the ADL) it's difficult for me to say.
So since I didn't advocate for an explicitly white America but a multiethnic one, why do you insist my views are white nationalist?
Seems that when the progressives argue for black and other groups for the nationalism of multiple ethnic communities, you are willing to excuse and justify it. And even justify how we treat the racist discrimination on the basis of the pretense of being about equality of outcome.
You are just making excuses and framing things inaccurately when saying that their agenda is just about equal outcomes.
In reality, to directly discriminate against a certain group and be honest about doing so, should qualify as less racist than to try to destroy it as a group, discriminate against it and then falsely claim about how this is promoting equality.
Excuses and falsities (i.e. lies by at least some who promote them) are a greater moral affront.
The current agenda of the progressive/liberal establisment represented by the Biden administration as well is a mixture of a black supremacist, Jewish supremacist, and anti-white supremacist ideology that celebrates and promotes the destruction and not representation and mistreatment of the white ethnic group. It also celebrates the identity of the groups it approves of.
This also effects demands and activism (recently, we have had Jews and ADL arguing about Jews being underepresented in Hollywood!)
Of course this kind of activism does not lead to any sort of equality, and you can't have that if you treat certain groups as inherently illegitimate.
It doesn't even lead to equality of outcomes, which I certainly don't accept means that such goal makes those promoting it to NOT be racist supremacists. Certainly there is no sincere, consistent attempt to promote equality of outcomes
Well, dude, you clearly support progressive racist double standards and deny using the accurate term racist supremacist for them.
You want to throw labels at others while not accepting any labels for the progressive faction. Which is fair to say when you try to characterize my own positions with a label.
When in fact it is that faction that has the racist supremacist agenda and directly promotes an agenda specifically to replace their ethnic outgroup, which they also deny any representation of its rights.
The word 'faggot' was a pejorative for a long time, until it was reclaimed. Whether progressives consider it a pejorative is orthogonal to the actual definition of the word and whether you think it accurately describes the worldview you're describing. If you think 'white nationalism' doesn't accurately describe your views, then what view would constitute white nationalism and what would you call your views instead? But I assume you do agree with the accuracy and just object to the fact that most people think white nationalism is a bad thing based on:
Why don't you try to claim the negative characterizations for the progressive side? Why not try to claim the label anti-white racist?
Well, whites existing is normal, it doesn't need a label.
When it is reclaimed by people including you, using it in more neutral terms, maybe we can speak again.
But even then, people should not have to identify with said term, to have that position.
Plus, another reason why someone doesn't have to do it, is because there might exist people on the right that think that to oppose said agenda someone must be as edgy and far right as possible, while would result in a smaller coalition.
The truth? We don't have to do what you want, and you promote on purpose marginalizing and sticking a term that has the effect of character assassinating your opposition because you know these tactics have been effective so far.
If you are unwilling to accept accurate but negative descriptions of your faction, we should be unwilling to accept negative, pejorative descriptions for those who don't oppose the rights of your ethnic outgroup.
People have been ineffective in opposing progressive extremism and impotent precisely because they have been afraid of being stigmatized.
This is such a strong force that it is very uncharitable and poisonous to the discourse behavior to try to label your opposition, as a response to the racist double standards of the progressive side.
Victory through one sided character assassination.
So if someone wants to accept a label? That doesn't necessarily prove them an extremist. If someone doesn't fine as well. In fact, I would expect to have ideologically more in common with those who don't, if they also strongly object to this agenda I also object towards.
But I am not against those who want to try to reclaim the term and treat it as more moderate than what you imply it to be.
You are unwilling to accept negative terms instead of reclaiming it, and so should others do for this term. You are using it as a pejorative.
White nationalism does not accurately capture my views because I am not uniquely a nationalist for whites (in regards to thinking they uniquely deserve nations) and I primarilly identify even more so with my specific ethnic group, and see groups like white Americans in part as foreigners. I also would consider excessive white nationalism that is the mirror image of your ideology, of say supporting colonizing non white countries and treating the natives as an illegitimate people, as something to oppose.
Typically people who self identify as white nationalists are more unconditionally pro white than I am, while my thesis is more conditional to opposing anti white racism. I would side with say Iraqis is a white group invaded their land to colonize and make their land theirs. This isn't to say there aren't people who identify as white nationalists, who aren't moderates. Frankly, what label you use to describe yourself is more flexible, and understandable if you are a moderate.
Another aspect of this is the idea of a race uniting as a common ethnos, of which I am not in favor. But this isn't to say there shouldn't be solidarity, or understanding of commonialities, especially when it also coexists with a broader civilization. Or even closer cooperation in say entitities like European Union and a combination of a common identity with a particular ethnic identity.
Of course in the current circumstances even an extremist on the right who doesn't share my views but goes much further, and is atypical of the main opposition to the side I am arguing against, is still someone who is arguing in a situation where the more pervasive side is the anti-white one. It would make zero strategic sense to focus on them as the primary problem.
In such a situation, I would consider that kind of person to ideologically fit as the opposite extreme of the ideology of the progressive faction which is a very extreme racist supremacist faction.
Part, but certainly not entirely of my motivation comes comes from an internationalist perspective, but also accurately describing reality. It is simply not true that european rights is an exclusively white nationalist aspect. To label it as such, helps promote a false understanding of reality. And I explained this previously which you didn't adequetly respect in your response. In fact your response was to typically be extremely dismissive towards valid racism extremism of progressives and try to label me with a term used as an extreme pejorative, while also implying that white nationalism = USA white ethnostate which I didn't argued in favor of.
So, if we are going to use labels, people who support the replacement, illegitimacy, and discrimination against europeans should simply admit their agenda is incompatible with international justice, but are antiwhite. And there are other more serious negative labels that could be used that would be accurate. Or that, if you are going to so easilly argue that this is white nationalism, then you should accept that internationalism is also in part white nationalist too.
Moreover the agenda of people who support the nationalism of oppressed identity groups to such extreme extend that they don't make room for the rights and nationalism of europeans, is an extreme nationalist agenda, for a coalition of ethnic groups.
Nationalism as a term is understood in two ways
A) Anything that has to do with treating nations as legitimate, and supporting a nation. b) Defined as meaning a chauvinist, an excessive nationalism.
In that sense, the progressives agenda aligns fully with the very excessive nationalism for their ingroup and with zero nationalism for their outgroup. While opposing said agenda doesn't do this.
Personally, I had the normal views that were not in favor of europeans and other broad groups going extinct for my entire life, before i was even aware that such views might be categorized as white nationalism. Of course, I also thought that groups should care even more about their own group being victimized, but I also consider it proper to oppose such agenda in general.
When I first encountered the more marginalized then activists promoting such views, I had the correct and common view that such far left activists are dangerous very unreasonable extremists. Those who want to sneakilly promote Noel Ignatiev's agenda should have a repuation as negative as Noel Ignatiev deserves and has in some circles.
This is how the majority of say the majority of French who want France to remain French, and made by the French people (who are a European ethnic group) think.
I consider the logic of having to justify and excuse of not being ok with an agenda to racially replace and culturally genocide a collection of ethnic groups belonging to a broader civilization and race, as remarkably twisted. That you have to justify why a group should have organizations representing its interests too.
It is reversed where the outrage out to be, and who should be put on the defendant's spot to justify the unjustifiable.
Frankly, the whole framework of USA of treating this as white nationalism, when adopted to europe leads to unproductive paths.
I also noticed a quasi-commoniality between some neonazis and these antifa progressives in that both want the fight to be about neonazism vs their ideology. The first, to promote neonazism, and the later to promote this extreme antiwhite racist, utterly destructive ideology, by pretending that it is nazism or not. It would be incredibly destructive and an aid to the worst type of far left extremism that has a very bloody historical trajectory to let things be defined in such manner.
When this whole ideology and way of thinking and language is absent, the sane position that respects european rights is more prevalent.
And I have observed this way of thinking infecting things in europe as well. With far left extremists promoting the game of framing the continuing existence of their ethnic outgroup as extreme far right.
Clearly, some ethnic groups are more legitimate than others in the current situation where this faction of progressives have this influence, and rather than accept this aspect, you are trying to win by denying it and playing the attack.
So, in conclusion, one can oppose antiwhite racism by just being a normal person, and from many different perspectives, while adopting different labels, or none for this.
Labeling the moderate position that whites have rights too and treating it as a pejorative with such charged history of being framed as extremism promotes a false understanding of reality in aid of far left extremism.
Normal here, still implies an ideology. But it is the normal ideology of people who thought that different ethnic groups including europeans have a right to exist and to respect the rights of others. And such people also identified and identify more with their particular ethnic group and broader civilizational family, such as western civilization. I find this way of thinking prefferable, than succumbing to the extremist faction of the far left.
Where we have a more pressing need, towards a sizable faction is in using the label of antiwhite racist and others is in regards to those whose agenda is the destruction and mistreatment of Europeans. This faction has unique huge double standards that necessitate to label them accurately and negatively.
A more neutral sounding term for such uglier agenda like cultural marxist would be a label that is also accurate.
While the normal and moderate position does not fit under any one label. It philosophically encompasses a wider space, and more accurately labeled with terms such as the reasonable perspective. And the one you choose to use because of the usefulness of attaching negative framing to opposition can carry different connotations does not accurately grasp the nuances of the normal and the ethical position. There is the history of completely uncharitable framing. But it doesn't just entail european rights which it does but can also mean but not necessarily so european rights in a more unconditional manner. Hence why moderate nationalisms that respect reciprocally other groups rights is more in line with what I advocate, but also doesn't just have to be described in such manner. It would be accurate and reasonable to also treat that Europeans too have rights as the default normal ethical position. Because it is so, and it was so. Conversely the "european ethnic groups are people too and is extremist white nationalism and uniquely evil" is an example of a more fanatical and unreasonable position promoted by extreme activists.
Now, once the moderate position that Europeans count too wins and the agenda that claims "they are not indingeneous actually" should not be tolerated, or exist, there is actually even then significant gray areas and room for debate.
Things would have moved in a more sane and ethical position. But not all issues are solved. Reasonable people who share common ethical priors can then try to find common ground and the correct view in said gray areas. This framework is not one that only people who identify as white nationalist, or are white, or even identify just as whites belong too.
Frankly, it should involve people who think both Europeans and non European ethnic groups should exist as legitimate groups with their own homelands and continuing cultures. Where nations do decide as their constitution actually say (and what label does this imply for those objecting) in many countries, to pursue the rights of their people. While still respecting the rights of other countries and avoiding doing things like trying to colonize them for example. International Justice of a world of different nation states primarily, and some multiethnic entities which also should not have an agenda that treats Europeans (or any other such broad group of ethnicities) as illegitimate.
While the ridiculously extreme agenda that favors the destruction and mistreatment of Europeans and slanders and dehumanizes those not following the party line would be seen as a bad nightmare, like Stalnism.
What, concretely, do you mean when you say white people have legitimate ethnic communities? As in, there are physical communities in the USA that should be able to exclude non-whites? Or even non-physical communities/cultural...events, or what-have-you that are necessarily white rather than race-blind mainstream American?
That there should be white organizations representing whites interests. That, in the USA non explicitly white organisations and people not representing whites in particular, should see the white American ethnic community as a core group, which is interests are legitimate and important part of what they ought to represent.
Outside the USA that should also be the case.
That the idea that this is evil should be taboo and treated as racist. The hysteric reactions and cancel culture on the issue should simply not exist. There also should be more intolerance for antiwhite ideology, including of this type.
That extremely antiwhite ngos should stop be tolerated to remain as pervasive as they are. How this ends up being done can be lead to discussion, or your imagination.
In general both the white and non white organizations and general organisations representing the interests of any groups should not be as extreme as say the ADL is today.
That race replacement in media depictions should stop.
That immigration should be opposed openly on the basis that it replaces white people (and also others like blacks). I also think white Americans in particular are key part of the historical american nation, and this should be recognised. That there should be an attempt to raise birth rates of historical American nation, and others of historical USA,so they don't become extinct in their own country. Also mass deportations of illegal migrants.
Frankly, as a country that has had already plenty of migration the identity of historical nation and the identity of newcomers is hard to create a common ground.
This isn't antithetical to in addition to the ethnic identity that there would also be a common American identity. But it can not be expected to be an one sided affair and would require non whites to respect whites, as well as white progressives to respect their own ethnic community.
This idea that tribal identity is an obstacle to a common identity but only for a particualr people is bankrupt. The USA is already a multiethnic country that promotes that the cohesive whole is part of multiethnic.
I generally have stronger views for european countries, which is not necessarily unrelated to not being American. Agency problems are real with nations. However part of it is that for most of them most mass migration is very recent and much of it from illegal migrants. I am not the man of all solutions of everything that must be done in the exact detail but I can certainly tell in a broad level that whites as a legitimate category of ethnicities rather than being designated by amnesty international as non indigenous is the more moral path.
Maybe some of the details of how far that entails can be debated. But it is definitely the case that targeting them to deny them such rights is a very destructive path.
What organizations like amnesty international are doing claiming that europeans are uniquely not indingeneous people is an agenda that leads to genocide, meaning extinction. It leads also to mistreatment and people becoming hated minorities in their own countries, while the foreign population boasts of conquering them.
If most conservatives do explicitly believe in nation and community building based on race, would you agree with progressives that call them white nationalists? And your argument is simply that being a white nationalist isn't a bad thing, because to you progressives are black/asian/hispanic nationalists?
Since you have been asking questions and asking if it is fair for progressives to be calling others as white nationalists, let me ask my question in the same manner.
Do you think that progressives who have massive double standards and might in fact support making minorities or even the extinction of white people, are not racist? Couldn't such agenda be accurately labeled as anti-white racist supremacy?
Is someone who either supports or tolerates the existence hateful identitarian organizations, and mainstream organizations that promote the same agenda and large double standards and stigmatizes whites in particular, not in fact nationalist to an extreme degree for various progressive identity groups?
If most conservatives do explicitly believe in nation and community building based on race
It is not the case that conservatives will choose race to be what nation and community is based upon. Ethnic communities that see their group as legitimate to pursue their interests in their favor are already treated as a core part of the USA. Race is already what ethnic communities are based upon, and are treated already as a legitimate basis of American identity. Especially non white groups. Hell, in a schizophrenic manner this applies to a very limited extend for white identity, since it is both allowed and not allowed. Both a group, but also it is bad for it to be a group. And it was the basis of white American identity even more so in the past. America is already a nation that understands it self as separated and comprised of different ethnic communities based on race. It is just the main one is not allowed the same rights and treatment than the other ones.
If most conservatives do explicitly believe in nation and community building based on race, would you agree with progressives that call them white nationalists? And your argument is simply that being a white nationalist isn't a bad thing, because to you progressives are black/asian/hispanic nationalists?
Absolutely not. I think progressives calling others white nationalists as pejorative towards any legitimate white ethnic identity should be treated as an example of them engaging in extremist racism and this behavior ought not be tolerated. It is an uncharitable conduct that stigmatizes white ethnic groups in particular and their advocates.
It is a slur as it is used, so it shouldn't be tolerated.
If the term is used in sufficient number in a non charged and abusive context, then it might become more legitimate. But it is bad conduct to be used in this manner.
This framing of white nationalism can justify destroying all european countries/people. So if someone opposes it and think their people shouldn't go extinct and shouldn't become a minority in their own homeland they are just called a white nationalist under an one sided culture of critique.
When actually it is the more moderate position, and was more so before the progressive's fait accompli due to mass migration happening. Although for european countries it is easier still for most because most mass migration is recent and less rooted. Some like Denmark have been succeeding in paying them to leave, as well as cutting. But of course the Danish had been ruled by moderate nationalist variety of parties, including a social democratic one. Describing them as such is less charged than calling it white nationalism. The connotations more accurately fit what the Danish are and did.
White nationalism as a term has been poisoned too much by abuse and hateful intolerance towards the legitimate human rights of white ethnic groups to allow progressives, or others who use it as a pejorative to throw the term around to characterize others who support the human rights of Europeans.
Moreover, I don't actually support limitless nationalism. Nationalism as a movement can results in excess, while opposition of nationalism and intolerance of said nation as a movement results in excess against said nation. Nationalist movements can be extreme or associated with it. White nationalism is especially uniquely stigmatized with extremism and it is also why it would be erroneous to label it as white nationalism because the connotation is that promotes an idea of a world of rights for whites only which isn't what I am advocating for. This isn't to say that all people who do self identify with the term are white supremacists in the way the later is associated with white nationalism.
The reality is large % of people support their continuing existence as a people, and this has been even more so in the past. And applies even more in European countries. These people tend to also not like fascism. The associations that the term white naitonalism has been used to be associated with and their ideology are different.
Nobody is calling anybody to implement the full agenda of the most extremist weakman you can find.
Fundamentally, I would rather different nation states which are homelands of their ethnic groups continue to exist, and have a perspective that see it as justice to oppose the destruction of even foreign nation states. Ideologically, I am pushing for treating as legitimate the interests of your own group. For you to prioritize your own group. But also to treat other groups same interests as legitimate.
This also applies in the case of the family unit. People should prioritise the interests of their own direct family and work for their well being and prosperity. Nothing unjust of ist for doing that, even if the family also has been under attack. Which also entails property rights to be respected and not allowing everyone into your home. Good fences make for good neighbors. Simultaneously they should recognize the same rights of others and try to seek their own prosperity not by acting like the mafia stereotype of destroying others in a predatory manner.
Many europeans do think on the way I frame things, against their extinction as a group.
American conservative base oppose the great replacement and are part way there in the way I advocate but have been influenced in part by the cancel culture on the white issue. There is still a substantial difference between much of the conservative establishment which doesn't oppose it, actual conservative base that does, and progressive/liberal movement that supports the anti white agenda, including replacing their white outgroup. It is also true that American conservatives who are pro white are less racist than progressives in terms of how much they respect different group rights. The agenda to replace and discriminate white people is the racist pervasive agenda of our time. While opposing this is the moderate option.
Progressives in the broad sense should stop throwing names around towards those rightfully opposing their extreme destructive double standards and be self critical of the extremism of their own position. In fact in terms of how much bias they have for their preferred groups and against their white outgroups, their position is the destructive and extremist one, if we compare and contrast.
This is a strawman, although I edited my post so maybe you missed part of it.
The basis of white ethnic identity is race. But is not sufficient. I said that the white progressive both is on some sense white ethnically, and in another not.
If they are against white ethnic identity as illegitimate, their behavior is not the same as the kind of people that fit more clearly to an ethnic identity.
If they are progressive otherwise but not against white as a legitimate ethnic category, this doesn't apply.
A common ethnic consciousness tends to be an important characteristic for an ethnic community. And foreign nationalities trying to oppress an ethnic group try to undermine and not allow them to have such common ethnic consciousness but to submit to their supremacy.
The typical white (American) progressive sees themselves as white but also thinks it is a bad thing for whites to identify with their own community, nor sees it as legitimate. This counts as a betrayal and oppressive hostility. This type of self hatred and self denial, does change how such person should be identified as.
There are even more historical episodes when "nation" wanted to force into ranks of "their people" masses who had zero interest to be part of this club. Just one example, like you claim to speak for all "whites" Russian nationalists always claimed to speak for all Slavs, even when these Slavs strongly disagreed. Hadn't ended well.
This is a gross misrepresentation. I didn't call to unite whites under my leadership, or ethnic group. Quite different. I even called against this. The slavic analogue would be to allow slavs to have their own ethnic communities. Not to be dominated by the Russians uniting all Slavs. Which I approve different slavic nations. I think even Yugoslavia was a bad idea and indicative of the problems of multi-ethnic constructs. I do think that people of different ethnicities but a broader civilizational or even racial category should unite in opposing being attacked unfairly as a group however. For example if some group is trying to destroy all Slavs, then all Slavs (and not just Slavs) should especially unite to oppose this.
Opposing your mistreatment is not dangerous, it is the reversal of reality. Not opposing it is dangerous and immoral.
It is in fact the progressive side that tries to force whites to not exist, and supports what will bring their nonexistence to reality through mass migration and ethnic and racial replacement, and through making their ethnic communities taboo and persecuting those who dissent. Which has in fact not only its own ugly history of persecution, but also goes more along with the modern example of Russia trying to dominate the Slavs. Not tolerating the existence of ethnic communities you dislike in their own homeland and supporting those who side with foreign conquerors is also more compatible with the bad behavior of the worst regimes seen as far right.
You are reversing the situation when it is progressives who deny representation of the interests of white Americans.
Do I respect people who aren't gang ho about their nation oppressing others? Sure.
Do I respect self hating ideology and supporting your own people's oppression and destruction? Not at all. It is a dangerous and extreme ideology that isn't respectable. But that only necessitates a lack of self hatred and extremism against whites. You can still oppose plenty of things in a manner that would be respectable, like one ethnic group of whites trying to dominate the rest, or whites colonizing the rest of the world.
If you want to play the "choice" card, progressives and others should remove their persecution first.
But in any case, a group that already exists is inherently a legitimate ethnic community. The idea that it is evil to identify with your own ethnic group and it's well being if that group is a white ethnic group in general, or in particular, is an immoral racist idea. Especially in a country that treats ethnic categories for other groups, including racial groups as perfectly legitimate. Including by conservatives.
Just drop the race thing completely and say: We are ancient Redneck nation, we want end of our oppression and persecution, we want freedom for our occupied Redneck lands, we want our national self determination.
I am not aware of the redneck nation being the primary group category that white Americans are called by. In fact, they are called whites constantly, both for condemnation, and in neutral identification. And in positive terms by white Americans. It is also how they are discriminated against in policy, in a systematic manner.
Part of the reason that their collective identity is delegitimized is divide and conquer, incidentally. Directly related to hateful rhetoric and policy at their expense to discriminate and replace them. As a certain rabbi said without antiwhite menace (unironically, I don't have a particular problem with him) in a video, there is a reason why hollywood targets whites but not Jews, blacks, etc. It is because the whites don't have their anti defamation leauge, and other organizations advocating against negative potrayals.
So in your perspective, while whites should be a redneck nation in particular and blacks, hispanics, Jews, Asians and others can be a seperate entirely category that is allowed. Which is what expressing selective outrage means.
How about, no. Your prejudices of targeting particularly white Americans is not a fair demand that should be listened to. It is in fact a racist demand.
Actually, I might eventually make a post in the future about why the ideology of liberals and liberalism, and the general cultural marxist framework is completely unsuitable for multi-ethnic societies. Their ideology is of course destructive for homogeneous societies too and part of that leads to them becoming more multiethnic. But for multiethnic societies, it is difficult as it is to keep the balance and different ethnic groups from dissolving things and from conflict.
But what they do once they have transformed societies into multiethnic? They don't try to keep the peace, and ethnic conflict at bay by promoting (which will come with some authoritarianism) some mutual respect among groups. They pick the native formerly majority group to treat as illegitimate while treating the foreign groups as legitimate while promoting arguements about how the native group's nationalism is such a threat. And do this both directly and by just one sidedly promoting criticism towards their ethnic outgroup and its identity.
This is not how you run any multiethnic society if your goal is to avoid conflict and respect the different groups that comprise of it.
It does relate to a strategy within multiethnic societies to avoid conflict eventually by one group dominating and destroying the others. Which is obviously very destructive and will cause conflict. But even if that goal is achieved then the other groups of the progressive alliance will find their own alliance that is about uniting towards a common outgroup more difficult to handle. Moreover, such societies wouldn't had become multiethnic without the progressives policies.
So why not the left to promote "intersectionality" but actually have a room for white Americans, Christians, or men? It wouldn't be the ideology of intersectionality any more, but it would work based on principle of seeking compromise based on different identity groups. Of course then there is also a question in regards to numbers, and there are still huge things up to debate.
In certain ways itself would be a massive compromise when considering American history.
But what has happened here which is the progressive side and those who conformed, to promote both the demographic replacement of their outgroup, and to treat it as completely illegitimate, while also treating their side as the anti-racist one is just remarkably extreme.
I am more interested in ethnicity than race. Which is in fact related to ethnicity, but the later is a more exclusive category. When a race is attacked in an immoral manner to be oppressed or destroyed as a group it makes sense, not only for them, but righteous in general to oppose this attack.
I do think white as a primary ethnic identity is completely legitimate for white Americans and I find the whole taboo to be remarkably irrational. For other white people, their primary ethnic group is different. Although even for white americans, it also comes with specific ethnic characteristics along. Especially historically.
To begin with, the ethnic identity of white groups of which their race is an aspect of their ethnicity is legitimate. But when white is the ethnic groupping used for the group, then it becomes also a legitimate category as the primary ethnic category. I always think about this question, that whatever ethnic group anyone is primarily called as, is inherently a legitimate category for them to identify with as an ethnic community.
This isn't racial essentialism, and does not require HBD which is true, to be accurate. I am not a racial essentialist if you define it to mean race is everything. I oppose mass migration of foreigners of the same race. I also would object to all white people trying to identify primarily with the general whiteness as a primary ethnic category, over seeing their white identity as a general category they have in common, because this would undermine and dissolve their particular ethnic characteristics. But it makes sense to unite against being attacked as a group on that basis, without dissolving their particular ethnic distinction.
Race is quasi ethnic, and an aspect of ethnic identity. And in multiracial societies tends to become the ethnic identity. And some groups like blacks, can be said to have a very strong sense of black identity in their diaspora in the west that it is in fact their primary ethnic identity in comparison to the european natives.
I also oppose people using HBD to justify destroying foreign ethnic groups. HBD should be an add up to how people view the world, not the primary lens. Ideally it can be used as a weapon to oppose bad policy and to accurately understand the world. Mostly, I see it as helping reinforce opposing things that are bad on other merits and I would oppose anyway such as mass migration and affirmative action policies, and blaming disparities on racism.
I also do not believe that white Progressives' ethnicity makes them somehow less my enemy.
But are white progressives genuinely white ethnically in the same way?
Moreover, USA can not be said to be a free country that allows its white ethnic group the rights to identify with its own community and have representation, when in fact there is a totalitarian system of persecution, blacklisting and character assassination.
Personally as a non American I am interested in how the same logic is used against ethnic groups in European countries and elsewhere too. The logic of America is used to lead to the destruction of european countries as well.
There are various historical episodes of a people under a foreign occupation that mistreated their own where a percentage of their own people supported the regime.
Cultural marxism has the nature of behaving and following the logic of foreign conquest and siding with foreign nationalism at expense of its own people.
Therefore, like those other historical situations of groups that have identified more with a foreign tribe, despite by ancestry and even customs often belonging to a different group, their position ethnically is more complex than to say they are clearly on your own side.
Moreover, if you actually investigate the rhetoric of people who are further right than you, and have a view in favor of white identity, many of them are willing to treat white progressives as enemies.
White progressives tend to think they are white but that white identity is illegitimate and evil. So they aren't clearly not white ethnically either. It isn't as if their perspective invalidates white identity because nobody identifies with it, it is more that they consider it illegitimate, while still being their group. This fits with the framework of parts of an ethnic group oppressing their own while siding with foreign ethnic groups. And of course some progressives that might be called white, might identify primarily as a different ethnicity and hostile to those who identify as white, because they see them as a threat to their ethnic identity. Which should be more clearly excluded from the white ethnicity category. While say someone like Amy Wax, clearly thinks that the white category in general are her people.
I don't actually object to you seeing blacks as also Americans and defining your country as not just a country for whites. Although, the current type of multiethnic USA is a massive compromise and a result of mass migration. Which is a huge problem to how to define a country based on a historical people and where other groups existed but tended to be excluded, but then was subject to mass migration. Without said mass migration it would be easier to define it as mainly made of a particular people but multiethnic too.
On the other hand, I think that it's okay to be white, and that the general liberal consensus on race has completely failed on its own terms, and that what remains of it is held together by active deceit. I'm not optimistic that any of the problems facing blacks can realistically be solved in the foreseeable future, and I'm militantly opposed to my tribe accepting blame for them. I think white flight and economic gating are reasonable responses to the dysfunction of the black underclass. I oppose mass immigration, and generally think that the proper response to mass-importation of voters is to reject and dissolve federal authority.
Well, it is fair to say that you do differ on a lot of issues with liberals.
Can you clarify what you mean that it is ok to be white? Would you ban NAACP, ADL and similar organizations if you were in charge? Would you stop the one sided taboo by allowing white identity groups to operate on the same basis as others? Would you enforce a taboo against racial ethnic community for blacks, or Hispanics?
The idea that identity politics are not effective is simply false. The dominant coalitions rely on identity politics and use it for the advantage of the groups that it comprises.
Part of what claims to be the right has embraced the refusal to do identity politics for its base, in fact to support cancel culture in that direction and tolerating and doing identity politics for progressive associated groups, so your proposal is simply repeating what has failed.
Beyond the issue of effectiveness, it is possible for others to be keeping you down, and it is actually good to oppose that. There is no reason to treat the same all complaints as some might be valid, and others invalid.
The truth is that even invalid blaming others and wanting more for your group at their expense can be effective though.
The problem with much of the current political establishment and this includes people who falsely claim to be on the right or center, is that they tolerate and support excessive rights for progressive stack groups, and don't respect the rights for the right wing groups like white christian men. This also relates to who they are demonizing and overly praising, and historical narratives.
At such it would be both effective and the moral path for the right, and center to sideline this authoritarian racist faction, which slanders and discriminates and favors the replacement of its base. To oppose anti-white and anti-male discrimination is good for society, and good also because it avoids an injustice at the particular groups and challenges directly the logic of the radical far left.
More options
Context Copy link