Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Wait, you are a moderator too?
Among the new individuals, I noticed netstack, selfmadehuman and another individual which is liberal. I would have to update then. So at this point what is the ratio of non liberals, to liberals? Are you comfortable being so outnumbered, that the process has been fair and balanced?
Naraburns is another case that is a little interesting as he opposes liberals on some issues but self identifies IIRC as liberal, and supports mass migration for western countries while opposing it for Israel. Is there also anyone who opposes zionism among the moderators and sympathizes more with the Palestinians than Israel?
I wouldn't say you aren't a liberal on ethnicity however. My impression is that you seem to oppose ethnic identifications and communities identifying with their group and interests and pursuing them, but oppose the liberal tribe for supporting doing this for their own preferred groups. So you are more consistent than them on that, but still take an ideologically more left wing perspective. Even if the actual left, especially the modern left has as key part of its dna applying it inconsistently.
Of course, my own perspective that it is legitimate for ethnic groups to identify with their own group (well not always, immigrants should be in limited numbers and identify more with the interests of the natives than if they lived in their own separate homeland), and to pursue their well being and legitimate interests and rights but do so in a manner that is reciprocoal with the legitimate rights of others. Which is affected by others behavior of course. To be fair this perspective also has existed among parts of the historical left, being a pervasive perspective in general. But the left wing faction that opposes this, and especially opposes it in a motte and bailey manner against their ethnic outgroups has been the most influential in pushing things in its direction. Plus my perspective has also existed and exists even more so outside the left.
Yes, the liberals who turn to the right don't think they have done anything wrong. I also mean by saying other progressives that the dinstinction between liberals and progressives as a tribe is false, and there is in fact enormous crossover.
Part of the advantage of liberals as a tribe, is this false sentiment of neutrality, of moderation, of centrism, when they are creatures of the left in reality.
Noah Smith has been a figure so repellent ideologically to the right, and hostile to it, that I am actually curious about what he said.
So, there are figures that can be friendlier to the right. But as for some left wingers who are rather prejudiced towards right wing associated groups and see their rights as illegitimate, and identify more with groups associated with the left, and support mass migration and tend to see opposition to them as immoral it would be a repeated mistake from the past to put too many hopes on them.
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.
Similarly we get heterodox academies of Jonathan Haidt whining about intolerance of heterodoxy, while their organization and groups are made almost exclusively by liberals. Or forums like motte, which as far as I am aware, all moderators are liberals, but is supposed to be a neutral forum, and the ideology of those who moderate is unrepresentative of the posters.
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.
Elon Musk and Mark Andersen although not dissident rightists do seem to have been influenced more so, or share an agreement with several issues promoted by the dissident right that are valid.
In general, I like the more moderate figures of the actual right, and dissident right like Auron Macyntire, while for the general faction, I think they are pushing in the right direction and society is too lopsided in a left wing and antiwhite direction, but I don't agree with the ends that some dissident rightists wish but have a more moderate preference. Meaning if the more extreme dissident rightists were the dominant part of society I would dislike them, however I do find the more moderate figures to be more moderate than the liberals and Ben Shapiro types too. And that the liberals are the dominant faction makes it quite wrongheaded to not prioritise them. As for the neocons, there isn't really that substantial difference with many liberals and the sweet spot of where to be on such issues is not attained by neocons. Not by a long shot.
I do think I have been influenced too by some of the figures of the dissident right and their views, and seeing that they got things correct.
But I was also influenced by the past religious right now, in a way I wasn't in the past. Frankly, it was mainly the liberals as a group, and their key politicians and political organizations and how far they have pushed and how that they behaved that played that role. And when talking about liberals a key part of the issue are how beholden and key part of it are various identitarian extreme lobbies of the progressive stack alliance of intersectional identities.
The right wingers who have been warning and being cautious and were defamed as being uncharitable, and unfair, were in fact correct. Part of that correctness relates to the skepticism towards liberals/progressives who are willing to sometimes criticize progressives. Of which even Obama has done so, in his quote about how the world is messy, but this doesn't change that Obama's influence lies after and before such statements. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/774918215/obama-says-democrats-dont-always-need-to-be-politically-woke
As president he helped push things in the woke direction. He certainly is supportive of the even more extreme Biden administration. And quite recently played a key role in a film with antiwhite racist rhetoric. https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-produces-first-fiction-movie-netflix-gave-extensive-notes-director-cyberattack-plot
Biden's and that general faction's extreme policies, of open borders, of authoritarian persecution of political opposition, on purging non woke, or following the progressive supremacist party line, are in fact alienating people. For that to count as winning, we should have to see a lot more than that and policy changes as a result of opposing faction/coalition exercising power. And of course, we shouldn't actually care too much about people who are part of Biden's faction but make some limited criticisms. It would be detrimental actually, in that it disincentivize caring about an actual opposition. The right has had a lot more rhetoric about winning, when it hasn't been winning, while the left pretending they are the underdogs, where they aren't, hasn't been detrimental to them. So, we should be realistic.
Belisarius
.
8mo ago
I disagree. Biden outright promotes as a good thing to reduce white %. Racial ethnic animosity is part of it. It is also about the left winning politically.
It is true that the goal isn't diversity per se. It is about groups that are desirable vs undesirable group. If a place is say 100% black, there wouldn't be calls to make it more white, for example.
Obviously the modern left is extremely anti nationalist for its outgroups, calling fascist to oppose migration and supports to extreme degree the nationalism of is itsgroup. This does relate to decolonization movement but paints colonization of europe as decolonization.
Antifascism and opposition to nationalism has always attracted figures like Stalin, some of the worst mass murdering wanabees, and extremists who actually commited the worst attrocities. People like Lazar Kaganovich or Leon Trotsky, or Lenin were not fascist, and yet their legacy was monstrous. And so was of figures like Stalin.
The bad thing about extreme nationalism is complete disrespect of other group's rights, and support of your group dominating and mistreating others. This is the bad thing about fascism.
The antifascism that pathologilizes opposing being dominated, would perceive the people who were attacked by Italian fascist imperialism as acting fascistically when they nationalistically opposed it. Indeed this was the claim of the USSR originally that it was imperialism to opposeit.
Your comments about opposing migration being fascist is dangerous and offensive and nonsense. Especially when considering how the left supports the dehumanization if not the murder of those called fascists and large majorities of people oppose mass migration in many countries.
Much of its evil was done under the banner of antifascism and opposing chauvinists.
Oh, and zionism when the USSR and Israel was allowed and it was a more left wing movement commited its attrocities and was extreme nationalist a plenty. A significant part of the left is willing to make compromises with extreme nationalism and call this antifascism.
This applies to those who align to an extreme degree with third world nationalism and see Jews as white oppressors, or align with the zionists but are also very anti european.
You offered an extremely reductive take which is like reading communists in how constrained it is to your prejudices. This take does not provide a solution and misses the fact that national liberation can in fact liberate people from foreign oppression and tyranny.
There isn't a solution but the same pathological far leftism that self justifies itself through pretending anything else is fascist. In reality, it isn't the case whatsoever and moreover the actual historical fascists also opposed far left extremism, and if it didn't exist and cause the damage it did, their movement wouldn't have risen. The officially antifascistic regimes have been some of the most oppressive regimes to ever exist in human history and commited also genocides against ethnic groups. Part of their extremism has to do with pathologilizing as fascism the common national sentiments of peoples, and then seeing themselves falsely as superior beings who have the right to punish those who don't share their false vision.
What is the alternative? I think trying to take into consideration the interests of different ethnic groups and oppose one group being expansionist and dominating others makes sense. It is true that what rises as opposing oppression can eventually lead to extreme situation.
The template of international justice which unlike the left's extremist must make room for the human rights and continuing existence of also Europeans, but also non European ethnic groups, is a better alternative than what the far left has to offer. And is certainly not fascism.
The connection between supporting your own rights and then going further than that should not lead us to the stupid notion that is pathological by default for a group to do so. For seeking to lack any support for your rights, being afraid of being overzealous leads to pathological altruism and supporting zealotry for a different group. Which part of its zealotry includes their demand that their outgroup are complete pushovers. So I am afraid, there isn't a better alternative if we are interested in the best worldwide system that to seek some sort of compromise between different groups nationalisms.
From that perspective, one can have a problem with fascism and left wing decolonization, and third world marxist nationalism, and zionism, for failing to do that.
In general it isn't good and a case of moral excellence for a group to lack the healthy notions of what is right and wrong and to be apathetic to their own mistreatment.
We also should see extreme antinationalism, and extreme collectivism against identity, whether it is for atheism against religion, or any identity, as itself a dangerous collectivism. What Trotsky called approvingly collectivism of individualism has proven to be just as tyrannical and oppressive collective and tribe than any other. It is a self-delusion to believe that this path is a way to avoid the negatives of tribalism. To the contrary, it goes further against human nature and requires greater fanaticism to maintain and inspires greater resentment still as it has to pathologilize many millions of normal people who are in fact nationalistic.
In fact, I must again empathize that in terms of destructive legacy, this movement which carries the banner and label of antifascism far outshines fascism. They just have had the chutzpah to constantly point fingers at others and never self reflect.
It is also often a target of infiltration by nationalist subversives who try to promote the strategy of promoting extreme antinationalism to their outgroup, while pretending to be against nationalism dishonestly and also promoting the idea of (limitless) nationalism for oppressed and no rights for supposed oppressors. Part of this is because it is in fact quite easier to make a coalition to destroy nationalism (for group X), if you are to include actual nationalists who hate X group nationalism. So some of the supposed anti-nationalists compromise in such manner to identify the evils of nationalism with a particular group.
While opposing genuine oppression of foreign extreme nationalists can be legitimate, and genuine moral national liberation activity, this idea of dogmatically treating regardless of the facts groups as permanently fixed oppressors and oppressed is indeed nationalist chauvinism of worst type.
I would say that secession is generally more justifiable when you are dominated by a group that hates you and wants to control you and have you live by their rules and likes the idea of dominating you. Giving them some level of autonomy and representativeness through the rulers listening to concerns can alienate this problem.
You can also have amiable divorces like the separations of Czechoslovakia into Czech republic and Slovakia. Neither group were tyranical against each other but they were drifting apart and separated.
In the case of the USA, the elephant in the room is also about the issue of power and being weaker if separated. Which is also the elephant in the room when it comes to American imperialists arguing about how Russia or China should be seperated in smaller states due to "freedom" or identifying the dominant current situation as excessively nationalistic or fascistic.
Larger blocks that are dominated by a certain center are going to be more powerful than divided ones. Of course, if the central force is going to act tyrannical then separation makes even more sense. You also see the opposition advancing the arguement against tyranny. There are even interesting historical examples such as the Athenians with their Delian league made of Greek city states, which was originally formed against the Persians but continued and was the coalition against Sparta in the Peloponesean war. The league was united when it was against a superior and external enemy in the Persians, but found itself in having some conflict within members after the Persians were defeated.
The Athenians also supported imperialism against non Delian leauge members that wanted to be independent. The imperialistic Athenians not only forced defeated countries to enter the league and pay tribute, but also forced them to be subservient and become democratic. There was also a quasi ethnic aspect to this with Athenians and most league members being Ionians. A sort of sub-ethnicity of the Greeks. While the Spartans and their allies of the Peloponesian league were to a greater extend comprised of Dorians and was made of oligarchies.
The Athenians grew more tyrannical against their supposed alliance making more demands of tribute. Eventually, the transformation of the leauge from a sort of alliance lead by Athens into an empire made it unpopular among the Greeks.
There was also the Boeotian league, another alliance of states and which eventually defeated the Peloponnesian league.
So we can see there is the threat of other groups enticing unity and alliances, and the danger of tyranny and being dominated by the stronger part of your own broader group, enticing separation. And human nature applied in groups does eventually lead to those, especially of a different group identity trying to push too far those others who are part of their alliance.
Even if black presence lead to some opposition to welfare, it is anachronistic now to praise it since blacks have used their influence to promote more redistribution and have gotten a decent % of whites to go along with it, in addition to groups like Jews being supportive.
And then to add to those blacks and that share of whites have supported the party of mass migration and redistribution. We also had black nonwhites migrants who also support more redistribution and quotas.
The leftists who want mass migration for their goals are strategically smarter than a libertarian which believes it would benefit their political goals. Of course, the leftists are also wrong if they want certain societal metrics to improve. But in terms of more % of redistribution, then that is more likely to happen with more diversity. Maybe at best a small amount might lead to situations of limited welfare, but the coalition in favor of the specific diverse groups, did not only push for more goodies for their side, but also for changing the demographics as we have seen.
Plus, a right that tries to appeal to multiracial groups might become less anti welfare. And moreover, in a situation where such programs become entrenched and goverment is accustomed to high spending, who is to say that the eventual evolution of conservative establishment isn't to support more spending but with less racial criteria. Or at worst, to become the left as the Torries have done in Britain.
Demonizing the largest demographic and screwing them over doesn't seem to be an obstacle in a democracy. If black Americans weren't told to be upset and if society didn't care that much if they were or weren't upset, it would matter less. And they would be less upset.
They are plenty of upset now, even though they are beneficiaries of systematic discrimination and propaganda in their favor. Tolerating this level of entitlement is and inciting anger is in fact what is especially bad in a democracy. And as the goal of the democracy ought to be the common good, it is also a bad idea to promote as you do the legitimacy of said entitlement of various specific groups. It should be considered a failure state of a democracy if a coalition or alliance of identities mistreat the rest. Especially the majority.
The reality there are a lot of cyclical arguements that their source and bottom is that coalition of progressive and ethnic activists captured power and promoted their ideas in favor of their favorite groups. The pervasiveness of these arguments has to do with movements that pushed them, and before they pushed them, there was less black entitlement and in fact you even had once white Americans rioting for films having black actors in them and things like that. If society could transform from that direction, to the current one which in your mind having such prejudices is a way to keep the peace, then it can be changed again but in a more reasonable end.
So, either one agrees with their perspective and will always find an excuse to not make such groups unhappy. Or they actually reject treating blacks and other demographics as utility monsters. The right should promote not only HBD but also the idea that there should be no special treatment and entitlement for blacks, and try to use power to bring that into fruition.
However, I do think that certain black problems deserve special attention in a manner that is de facto redistributive. Well, to the extend you do have race blind welfare that isn't excesive, they would be beneficiaries as they are now, even without any AA type of policies in societies. And to the extend the police should have to deal more with black criminality, they also would disproportionately be beneficiaries as greater % victims of black crime. Obviously there would be less spending if there was less criminality by blacks. I think it is fair for them to benefit in these ways, but also to acknowledge that they are a community that is beneficiaries of society, and ought not be upset. Which would be more the case if things are framed in the right way and they aren't told they are owed what they in fact are not owed. We would find that punishing criminals, and discouraging entitlement works actually to stop the problems of black anger.
And the police should focus on high crime areas of course. But what about disproportionately black criminals? I care about victims of crime, not the deserving punishment of criminals. And the entitled mentality of a black community to the extend they make unreasonable demands and have a false view of the world and the left wing activists who played some role in inluencing them shouldn't be respected. The goal is as elites have done in democracy towards the left, to actually enforce what you want and change the attitudes as well. Just as the laws were in that direction and Black community leaders were more pro tough on crime in the 90s.
A necessary part of that should be liberals losing influence, and conservatives and tough on crime types taking power and promoting their views and agenda outright, while promoting as black community leaders those who go along. So there is no choice but to play the game of power and promote your own different narrative. You aren't really in opposition to the left wing project if you can't do that and instead favor preferential treatment for groups like blacks, so they aren't upset.
Does this mean that HBD is insufficient? Well yes, and no. Most of the people promoting HBD also want to counter the left's narrative on race and oppose discrimination in favor of left wing groups. The reality is those who want to be liked by the left and share with it their way of viewing the world are unlikely to promote HBD, although some might promote only HBD for Jews and talk about how they are high IQ. This combination of HBD and opposing the left's ideology is a narrative more intellectually successful in opposing the left than if you removed HBD from it.
While theoretically, you could have people who talk about HBD and support AA, in practice it is a rare combo. You do have some who support HBD and align with the left in other ways though.
The reality is that internet people promoting HBD already have some influence. It only takes taking more institutions and promoting such views in them to gain even more influence. More of the right should be promoting said facts.
Public hypocrisy is the only way out that will be accepted unless you are ready to go the Nietzsche and Gobineau route (and you are not).
No, it is important to confront racial disparities. Plus, at worst a cultural version of HBD is necessary to be promoted or else the entire centrist and right wing project collapses.
If the answer to "why disparities" is not "they happen", then you can't really even tepidly oppose the left.
So the most politically correct answer should basically be HBD without elaboration as to why.
Else the liberal narrative that distorts reality will dominate.
We just have seen Musk promote some HBD accounts, so things can be pushed further.
Also, it is impossible to promote anything with this mentality as the liberal ideal is to frame anything but submission as racism and you being a bad person tm with various label. And same applies to all the identities, whether feminism and women, blacks, jews, you name it.
I would suggest that BAP stops promoting shit like "Billions will die" and stuff like that in his twitter account, while not promoting abandonment of the field on more reasonable issues.
Moreover, BAP is a Jew. And we see plenty of Jewish supremacists promote their own superiority using all the angles. Plus non Jews who are Jewish supremacists who also do this.
Religious and how the bible says that God had chosen Jews and others should serve them. HBD obviously. Oppression olympics, holocaust/eternal victimhood of how they are the most oppressed ever. Framing any dissent as antisemitism. As supporters of the left who have done good. Or even the idea that favor them so they favor you and they are so accomplished because of cultural reasons, because they are awesome.
These narratives go a step beyond explaining that inequalities exist, but promoting servility towards Jews and justifying hardcore double standards.
Obviously the left's narrative about women and blacks in regards to men and whites is bigoted too and supports superior treatment. Moreover, we do get articles and research in academia about women being superior to men.
If these kind of narratives can exist, why can't a more ethical and moderate and benign narrative that disparities exist, be promoted? In fact it is completely central to the moderate and right wing project to promote such narratives and many right wingers constantly did, in addition to those who didn't do it. The more politically correct version of this, would be something that you are going to find right wingers argue even in the mainstream.
Maybe the reason rightists lose is because a lack of nerve and will to promote consistently views that actually counter the left. The left promotes a bias in favor of its favorite groups and cries racism to dissent. The right agrees. Result -> bias towards said groups. This is basically the entire history of the right, it lose because it was divided between some right wingers who opposed the left, and others who didn't. And then there were some even more left wing like. Those ended up cancelling right wingers whether the neocons in USA or Cameron removing conservatives and preffering liberals in UK.
The most obvious thing to do is to directly argue that yes blacks do have higher crime rates and even be angry at leftists for lying. There is really no point in behaving in accordance to the rules of political correctness. You would lose everything 100 times out of 100. This doesn't mean being as needlessly provocative as possible.
Another issue is BAP's take about democracy being incompatible with this. But the left within a democracy pushed its own agenda at the expense of large % of population by exercising power, passing laws, putting its own people in charge and by promoting its own narratives.
The right wing has tried gatekeeping itself for a century and has being losing while doing so. The left chose a different strategy. The left has tried promoting its own agenda, while framing itself as moderate and moreover fanatically troll the right and tell the right that it ought to behave like leftists to be moderate and not extremists. While using labels for their political opposition constantly, and presenting a distorted picture of reality. I don't want the right to do that, but I do want them to not back off on any matters of truth.
So, in conclusion, it betrays a lack of imagination and not learning from your own mistakes to refuse to outright push for your own ideology. Which doesn't mean to promote the most edgy purity spiral far right ideology out there. Trump's poison of blood statement didn't matter much to most voters, and politician saying something won't be that greatly important. The right should try to take over media/academia with its own people and have them promote HBD. People in power, and in media, promoting your agenda ought to be part of the plan. As we saw with X, once the censorship stops, you genuinely can push this kind of things. If the right ensures an environment where HBDers won't be fired, but would be promoted, but those promoting pseudoscience won't be funded, well that in itself would allow HBD to flourish.
While I agree that one can be pro white without being a white nationalist, I strongly disagree with many of your other claims.
One could claim that anyone who supports anything that is destructive for a group, "cares" actually.
The reality is that people who particularly dislike intensely a group and it comes part and parcel with such dislike, tend to support its demographic replacement and abolishment/extinction. This is because it is genuinely harmful to the group as a group to become a minority in their own homeland, or go extinct. When Noel Ignatiev is saying that "abolishing the white race is so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that anyone other than committed white supremacists would oppose it." he was infact an anti-white racist. And this is me understating it. His agenda was genocidal.
If someone cares about a group but supports something that is genuinely destructive for them, we should consider whether it matters how much they care. It could also be the case that they aren't honest.
Conversely, people who support a group and are part of such group tend to oppose such replacement. Because it is beneficial to a group to not become a hated minority in its own land, or go extinct.
This way of thinking is definitely able to be understood when it comes to other ethnic/racial groups, and how colonization by foreigners or their replacement or even possible extinction is bad actually.
As for white nationalism in particular. The reality is that it is the boogieman, not because we have a rational society reacting to the greatest threat of racism by white people, because we see the dominant rhetoric and policy to be of an anti-white form, and president Biden to have made comments more in line with Ignatiev's comment than against it. Comments about how mass migration should happen to replace white Americans. The threat of its extremism is used as an excuse to promote an anti-white agenda and part of the denouncements have to do with fear and a desire to prove to be one of the good ones and not be cancelled and slandered. And it is in fact the case that a society that is hysteric no matter what about X group nationalists, tends to be racist against said group. More so the case when that group is actually mistreated in policy, and denounced in rhetoric. When it doesn't have representative organizations.
In reality, unconditional limitless nationalism for any group can be immoral and therefore white nationalism can be immoral in this manner but also a lack of any nationalism comes along with said ethnic group being oppressed and mistreated. It is a common aspect of the worst mistreatment and destruction of an ethnic group to attack its nation and denies its existence and legitimacy. To disallow it national self determination and to promote the tyranny of being governed without its interest being represented. Another aspect of this is toleration of other nationalisms to excess, and this is also something that is happening.
So if one group rights should ideally end where another group right's begin this necessitates a general broad quite different and more qualified and nuanced take on white nationalism, over the approach of treating it as the worst nationalism ever which brought things in the current anti-white racist situation. Nor should the correct approach be unconditional support of anything that could be pro white and anti non white groups and constant double down in that direction in a limitless fanatical manner.
The preferable way to frame things and a workable system for different groups is one of international justice that recognizes the reciprocal rights and limits of different nations, including white and not white nations.
White nationalism doesn't just mean "pro-white", it is generally defined by its advocates as including a desire for the existence of white ethnostates. It's like conflating "cares about jewish people" and "zionist": many jews believe zionism harms jewish people instead of helping them (and doing it with white nationalism is even less accurate because zionism is currently more mainstream).
Certainly there can be forms of white ethnostates that are analogous to zionism in behavior, and there can be imperialistic white nationalist behavior that can be rightfully opposed but the existence of european countries that wanted to remain european has a) been the dominant model b) population where political class moved away still support this in many cases like in France where they oppose the replacement of French by non French, including presumably non french whites c) we still have some white countries that the political establishment supports remaining such.
The change in attitude is recent. Even in the USA is from a couple of decades.
The idea of opposing being replaced is certainly less controversial than zionism in that it doesn't step over the rights of others in the way zionism did.
And has been treated as less controversial in general outside of the movement that Ignatiev represents. Ironically, allowing mass migration in turn made the accusations of racism more of a reality that the opposite. I would argue that opposing your own extinction and your nation's colonization is opposing anti native racism and in line with international justice. While having an agenda in favor of whites not having any homelands represents a very extreme form of racism.
This is in fact compatible with european countries not having their own people going extinct and a minority, but remaining majority, and the USA as multiethnic but again opposing mass migration explicitly because it is immoral for the white Americans who created historical USA, to become utterly disminished in the country they created and dominated. Although under this framework it was legitimate for Americans to have made a choice in the past to not open their borders to the rest of the world.
As we see with the results today, such migration was an important factor in the rise of anti-white racism.
This post shows a huge potential problem with veganism actually.
Ideological veganism of this type as does apply to Peter Singer's version is anti-human.
By trying not to be speciesist as you say and making animals and humans morally equivalent, you enter into valuing human life less, to make it more equal to animal life.
Hence Singer supporting infantcide, killing comatose.
Humanism, what you call speciesism, forms an ideological barrier that restricts anti human ideas from entering.
Ironically, what is often called anti-racism has some of the same problems. The fear of putting a group, such as whites first can lead to putting them last and is an aspect of our anti-white racist age. Which makes all the whining about white tribalism threat pretty immoral and ironically racist and a case of misaligned priorities. In the current circumstances, and in line of your own prejudices, you should be more afraid of that reality and the possibility of this increasing, rather than the opposite threat. Radicals rather than carefully opposing only what should be reasonably opposed have promoted antiwhite racism, in line with their own prejudices.
Similarly, but worse pro animal prejudice and anti human mistreatment is one of the promises of many advocates of veganism in combo with animal liberation. Less so for those which is more about their own personal preference and ethics and are much more restrained in their political vision.
Another thing to consider is that if animals are morally equivalent to human beings, then under that framing current humanity is engaging in mass murder of gigantic scale and is extremely monstrous. This false perspective could very well lead to supporting mass violence at its expense both to stop it, and to punish those engaging in using animal products (i.e human civilization as a whole). It is a path to self destruction and it isn't surprising that one of the biggest anti-natalist figures David Benatar who thinks humanity should stop giving births also adopts the framing of humanity as an oppressor of animals.
And of course would come along with totalitarianism where non veganism is ruthlessly persecuted both as a practice and as an ideology. Which could also come along with a lot of violence.
In regards to David Benatar:
Benatar is vegan, and has taken part in debates on veganism.[15] He has argued that humans are "responsible for the suffering and deaths of billions of other humans and non-human animals. If that level of destruction were caused by another species we would rapidly recommend that new members of that species not be brought into existence."[16][17] He has also argued that the outbreak of zoonotic diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic,[18] is often the result of how humans mistreat animals.[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
The ideology of this not canceled academic who thinks humanity better not exist is in my view worse than many of the most advertised as worse ideologies in the world, including ones I directly sharply attacked. There is a connection with the marxist idea of utopia after destroying class enemy and class, or cultural marxism and destroying race and whites/whiteness/oppressive western civilization, and now for humanity as the oppressors to be eliminated by not reproducing. Benatar's is the worse version of this way of thinking. I certainly wouldn't trust people sharing Benatar's ideology with nuclear weapons, or biological research on diseases, or even A.I. research. Any veganism that comes anywhere close to Benatar's ideology should be treated with extreme intolerance.
It would be saner, less dangerous and better for advocacy of animal rights to be done under a perspective that rejects their moral equivalency to humans and is very careful not to be anti-human. Humanism is good actually and the speciesism framing is too absolute to not lead to such destructive paths. Hence, we would be better off if we outright blacklisted pro animal rhetoric that is anti-human and not careful. Especially the type that supports, or provides arguments that help justify harming various categories of human beings because they sympathize more with animals.
This is half true/false.
Trump basically didn't give them all of what they want and panders to everyone. This is unacceptable to them and frame it as extreme.
If Trump was not elected, a Clinton administration would be more neocon.
In foreign policy, Trump's behavior was definetly not as beligerent as the neocons would have liked both in the middle east and also on Russia. He also opposed the Iraq war. He still was extremely pro Israel though.
On the culture war sphere, he pushed for muslim ban, tried to get his wall and cut off immigration, had some edgy quotes. it is also what he didn't do. But also pushed the decriminalization bill, tried to pander to Hispanics, etc.
Trump derangement syndrome is not about Trump being uniquely bad or far right but about him being moderate and our elites radicalizing in a purity spiral direction. Part of this is also a tendency to be too judgemental about singular quotes and towards the right and to avoid making comparisons.
Part of being a moderate of course includes edgy far right type quotes about migrants like Trump did. A moderate should be expected to sometimes be edgy in a right wing direction too, and sometimes in a left wing as Trump did with the decriminalization bill towards blacks. Maybe he is too far to the left though in general.
It is a comparative issue. So Trump a) had executive orders against people promoting diversity ideology in the goverment, opposed removal of confederate monuments and claimed that it would be after the founding fathers next. Compare him to someone like Joe Biden, who has been aggressively anti-white and woke and authoritarian to a great degree, and Trump comes as the more inclusive president ironically. Someone who unlike Biden, and the neocons does try to pander to everyone, perhaps less to white voters directly.
We saw that in various countries without Trump like figures, the right implemented it self the cultural far left agenda.
So, Trump isn't the great based figure, but he is a lesser evil and the more moderate option who tries to push back against some of the radicalizing excesses and tries to some extend to satisfy some of the demands of his base too. I guess he might fall more in line with some of the rhetoric of some of the claims of neocons in the 90s but they have proven themselves to be more disingenuous and much more radical.
Clearly for Trump to make an actual lasting change he will have to act more aggressively if he is elected the second time, fire a lot of people and put actual right wingers in charge of the bureaucracy. But there are also limitations of how much one guy can change things, but he can do more. Focusing too much on Trump as a problem misunderstands things. People like the ex republican speaker of the house claim that the republicans should be like the Democrats and reflect American demographics. We saw how similar claims by Cameron ended up in British politics.
The real story is the radicalization of the liberals and people who erroneously affter accepting too much far left ideology claim to still be centrists. And of the people who present themselves as center right. Part of this had to do with normies being influenced by propaganda by more extremist types who promoted one sided distorted picture of the world after we had left wing and neocon march through the institutions. Is someone who started more moderate still such, if they are successfully manipulated in this manner? A world without Trump is a world where either other type of populist leaders oppose them or these kind of people try to remove all opposition and in an authoritarian manner impose a hardcore racist cultural far leftist woke agenda.
In foreign policy there is a similar problem with the influence of the MIC and certain lobbies that are pro war against Russia, China, or say Iran. There is also an issue of corruption and revolving doors with politics, think tanks, and weapon manufacturers. And also the influence of collection of donors and their lobbies. Nikki Haley exemplifies that corruption in a way that Trump doesn't, while it would be a mistake to pretend that Trump is independent of it. In general, in most ways Trump is bad he is similarly bad to most other politicians and not as bad.
So he seems as neither the problem and unlikely to be the solution, even if people put hopes on him due to sucking less than most.
Belisarius
.
8mo ago
Vegans can be successful athletes but it is more effort to do so. I dunno if one can be among the best athlete and a vegan.
Vegan protein tend not to have all protein amino acids and protein is less bioavailable. So it requires more effort to make sure you are eating different vegan foods that have a complete set.
Realistically effort matters a lot of how averages of people behave. So you are likely going to get a less athletic population on veganism. Plus veganism from what I know would be a bad idea for young children.
In general there is a danger of malnutrition with veganism which can be overcome with effort and knowledge. Since people can not be expected to have the knowledge and make the effort, this does mean that wider adoption of veganism would result in more of such problems.
And this is not entering issues about animal fertilizer, logistics, and more.
Yes but veganism can also be bad outside of the direct moral issue. The refusal to care about second order effects and the broader consequences of an ideology over the more direct ethical rights issue is a general weakness of left wing ideology that claims it advocates for the rights of a certain group. Which rights can also undermine the rights of others. Maybe not as much tactically, but when it comes to getting desirable results for humanity as a whole it does matter. Tactically, unfortunately many people are susceptible to myopic vision and getting bullied by this kind of moralism. I am not against moralism myself, but I oppose myopic moralism.
The onus should be on vegans to convince us that humanity adopting veganism is realistic, workable and good. Not only as an end point but also that the process will be successful and not more akin to say the communist project of ending "exploitation of workers" and promoting a "classless society".
It is hard for me to oppose some weaker suggestions like reducing animal cruelty in factory farming, but I am much more suspicious of more ambitious left wing movements in general, including veganism in particular.
I think you make a valid point but we should be very careful not to abuse the concept of Chinese robber fallacy which becomes the fallacious way to operate. This can be used as a slogan to shut down investigating the reality of things by assuming that negative conclusions are fallacies.
Negative criticisms about various groups can be accurate and those who contest them might have a positive bias, or be misinformed, or just unwilling to admit to what is inconvenient. And you are going to find political partisans at any side promoting different claims, and pointing at bad behavior of their outgroup. And that will include those who act in line with the facts.
It is possible to convince people of negative facts about other groups based on propaganda, but it is also possible for people to pattern recognize politically incorrect facts that are negative about other groups. For example most people don't think the Chinese are robbers but many more think the Chinese in China might follow unscrupulous practices in their manufacturing processes.
There is a finding in psychology research of stereotype accuracy as one of the most replicable effects in it. https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
So, we can't conclude a priori whether we are dealing with propaganda or pattern recognition of pervasive problems by those who pay more attention and such problems. Although some claims might be more likely to be one or the other.
I don’t think they’re saying that. I think they’re saying that, whatever one’s personal opinions on the conflict, it’s become clear that it’s ‘us’ or ‘them’. Two state solution is dead. Either there will be an Arab Muslim state of Palestine or a Jewish state of Israel. Both sides are clearly aware of this, neither is happy with a compromise position. So the only remaining questions are firstly whether to fight or surrender, and secondly what must be done to win.
No, the above poster was pretty clear with what they were saying and you shouldn't be sanewashing them. This motte and bailey with the kind of genocidal language and the more vague "its about what must be done to win" is tiresome.
A Jewish Israel already exists. They have won at expense of Palestinians plenty already. Maybe tomorrow you will be calling for them to win some more and promoting the dilemma of Syria, or Lebanon vs Israel. Why expect that the Likudist great Israel project will stop at Gaza?
The question in practice isn't whether it will become an Arab Palestine, but whether it will continue with illegal settlements, mass destruction in gaza that has lead to some of the highest casualties per capita for time of conflict in modern history, blockade, shutting down electricity and food supplies. While many of Israeli elites use the most extreme language about how they support warcrimes, of how they are dealing with animals, how they are to destroy Amalek. Really the question is whether Israel will seize more land and succeed in a second Nakba.
Obviously, almost the entire world agrees that ceasefire is a better move and compromise than Israel continuing this course. You are promoting the fallacy of a false dichotomy here. If people support Israel commiting ethnic cleansing through a very murderous conduct against the Palestinians, they should say this outright. And should stop framing their extreme nationalist and racist preference at expense of Palestinians and in favor of Jews as being about having no alternatives which is false.
Incidentally, lets assume for the sake of discussion that both Palestinian leaders (in Gaza) and Israeli leaders are fanatics and many of their people have been fanaticized in turn in said direction and their dream is the destruction of the other party. In that scenario, we don't really have to adopt fully their perspective and preference. In terms of what pressure has to be enacted, it shouldn't actually respect and allow the desires of Likudists or of Hamas to be realized.
French Algeria is not a good comparison, because the French have a France.
Eventually the French will not have a France in the current trajectory and unlike the Israelis they are politically not pro French today in the way Israelis are pro Jewish.
We don't live in a world that the argument in favor of respecting a people's right to exist as a majority in their own homeland is taken for granted. Or to continue to exist in general without demographic replacement and threat of persecution in their own homeland. Especially not by the pro Jewish lobby in western countries which has an isolated sensitivity to the possibility of Jews being oppressed that it doesn't apply to various other groups such as Palestinians, or indeed the French. Do you support France remaining French and the homeland of the French people?
In accordance to the person you are responding to, Israel's occupation makes it unsustainable, especially as Palestinian demographics increase. So the Jews living in Israel have the option to remain to Israel but abandon settlements and the occupation and still have a homeland. Stopping the settlements doesn't stop Israel from existing.
There is also the option of a transformation of Israel into a civic state that is multi-ethnic that grants equal rights to Palestinians even if eventually the Jews become a minority. Jews can have equal rights and live there. Another alternative is a state that is even suspicious of Jewish nationalism in the manner western societies are more anti their own ethnic group's nationalism than those of minorities and is pro mass migration. This wouldn't be a genuinely equal and just society but it would fit with the template of what mainstream liberalism and most influential Jewish ngos support in western countries and under their definition would be anti-racist.
Either scenarios can be be opposed to legitimately, if one consistently oppose such experiments by having reasonable worries in other cases, but not if they aren't. But the first scenario especially does exist in the table as an alternative.
The important issue is that Israel as a Jewish majority state can coexist with respecting the rights of non Jewish minorities in Israel and in Palestine. So it is a false argument to claim that Israel's current course is about its existence, when it is about an extreme nationalist agenda to dominate non Jewish Palestinians, ensure demographic dominance in the future as well and get control and land. Religion and the idea that all of that land and more is God promised land is also not irrelevant to this conflict. It would also be nice if Israel tried to police some of the religious intolerance towards the Christian community living in Israel and punish those spitting on them.
It's not like the poor people of Gaza are held hostage by Hamas. Well they are practically if things like a good economy and future is of concern, but I don't think Gazans want all that more than they want the destruction of Israel. They want Hamas, they still think Oct 7 was a good idea given Israels retaliation, they spit on dead bodies of abductees. Palestinians are maxed out in their antisemitism. In a sane world they would have been eveporated yesterday. They are practically a death cult that is a ticking timebomb and a stain on the middle east.
You are calling for an eradication of a people and yet you are attacking them for their extremism. Clearly you demonstrate an extremism of far worse proportions here and by going that far are demonstrating the wrongness of your position. I highly doubt when you have such a pro mass murder position today, with so little to excuse it you would be more sympathetic to Israelis if you were in the Palestinians position.
This is why most of the world and majority of American youth is against Israel's attrocities and support's ceasefire.
To address what you mention just bellow about the woke.
The problem with the woke is that they are unjust, are racist extremists, have no sense of proportion, have a never ending grievances, explore ethnic issues in the most ridiculously one sided propagandistic manner, don't respect their hated ethnic groups rights and so on and so forth. Actually the zionist ADL types are an important part of it, but granted there can exist those who are more negative of the Jews who also can be part of it. It is your logic here that follows that template whining about Palestinian antisemitism being maxed out while you support their eradication when you say they should had been evaporated yesterday. And of course, like the woke you make no effort to understand any nuance, as if Israel has not been just minding their own business respecting the Palestinians rights, while you are painting it as if Palestinians launch terrorist attacks just cause they are evil.
What is going to happen since you respect power so much, is that this kind of extremism that is indecent will come with a backslash and people losing respect and opposing those having such positions. And this is an understated way to put it.
Personally, I can't but be affected when I see the destroyed homes and the footage of the dead children. To trivialize genuine disgust at civilians being destroyed in one of the worst 21st century atrocities by comparing them to the woke, is promoting a manipulative and false argument. Sympathy over the nonsense promoted by the woke is not warranted. However, precisely because people like you promote their destruction the Palestinians deserve our sympathy in opposition of this agenda and in support of Israel stopping the war.
People are not going to be convinced by this kind of rhetoric which appears unhinged. A picture says a thousand words and the world is going to be increasingly angry at those who commit and support these atrocities.
I consider it negative on Jews but not Anti-Jewish because the term has been abused to an extreme degree by one sided complaining and excessive complaining where it isn't warranted without any sense of proportion. Of course if you search for the Talmud and the Torah you can find far worse. Including against non Jews in general. One of various examples: https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.4.11.7?lang=bi
See 257 reference which says:
Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles
Also, Christian Zionist Judeo-Christian interpretation of Christianity and the general movement is anti-Christian and promotes a mentality servile to the Jews so a version of Christianity if one takes it as Christianity has anti-Christian elements. The Bible includes the Old Testament which does have some extremely racist passages favoring genocide and mistreatment of non Jews and Jews lording over others as God's chosen people.
For the bellow passage and the quote one could interpret it as meaning perhaps the Jews of this incident. A pro Christian interpretation would be that it is about the Jews but precisely because Christ's Godly way is more moral than how the Jews interpret their tradition. Frankly as a Christian who isn't very literalist about everything in the old testament, nor very religious (I have a complicated relationship with faith) but it is still my culture and religion, and my people, especially a subset of them I can't but see a difference between the New Testament and Old Testament, with the first advocating a more merciful morality than the later. In general, it is better if certain passages of the old testament especially are not taken too seriously by anyone through interpretation. While there are quotes in the old testament too that are wise like Thou shalt not kill.
But no reason for Christians to allow themselves to be psyopped in letting others dominating them and mistreating them which is different than the historical Christianity. Of course, while I want Christians to stand up for themselves and not tolerate Anti-Christian hatred and haters, if Christians go full Old Testament, that wouldn't be ideal from a more universalist ethical point of view and not my preference.
So here it is one, see especially John 8:44:
You can read it from the beginning in the bellow link.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208&version=KJV
19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
There is also the bellow quote from revelation 2:9.
I know thy works and tribulation and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
These are examples that I recalled. This isn't necessarily a list of everything that might qualify.
Belisarius
.
9mo ago
This is looking for a loophole and a gotcha to justify attacks on Christians which are anti-Christian.
Christmas is particularly Christian and to the extend it has been de-Christianized it is still attacked on the basis of Christian origin and being too Christian.
Are people opposed to Christmas because of its celebration of consumerism anti-Christian?
But that isn't the primary argument you have used against Christmas but that it is Christian and it is religious bigotry for not equal space to be given to other religions and not undermining the Christian one. So it isn't correct that opposition to Christmas is mainly about anti-consumerism.
Oppressing the majority and being intolerant to their culture and religion for the sake of accommodating minorities is not a good idea if one wants to combat religious bigotry. It actually what you do if you want to enforce it, and that is why conquering religions did just that on majorities they conquered.
What you suggest is not the end of bigotry but the elevation of it by an oppression of the majority by an alliance of minorities. AKA progressive stack religious edition the anti-Christian version.
In the case of an atheist allying with religious minorities against the majority then you still got bigotry of the atheist and the religious minorities. Not only are atheists not exempt from bigotry, but in the modern world have been some of the worst participants in it, with Christians being often the victims.
And if someone has the goal of an atheistic state oppressing all religions, you got an oppression there too. Both that and nor not allowing the majority the right to celebrate their religion are a case of a worse value system and not a better one.
Moreover, like non Christians have their own countries and there is no agitation of this nature, so do Christians have theirs. In fact there is no agitation of this extend about avoiding actual mistreatment of Christians neither in Israel nor in Muslims countries the two examples you mentioned. There is some by the Christian community in Israel but not much attention by those eager to complain about religious bigotry. Albeit, the worst state about mistreating Christians is one of the Muslim ones and not the Jewish one. Maybe Pakistan.
I guess a final point to be made is that experience with the progressive movement and identitarians who align with it tells us that even one-sided multi-culturalism has not been the end point. In fact we see some double standards even now and it is rather plausible that once Christian religion has been even further delegitimized, this will be enforced savagely with the tactic of associating Christianity with evil oppression and hatred, while there will be more tolerance towards other religions like the Jewish and Muslim ones you mentioned. This fits with the general pattern of an alliance of minorities against the majority. So if Christians want to avoid bigotry, the last thing they ought to do is listen to the Anti-Christians.
This is valid about plenty in modern Christianity but historical Christianity wasn't like this. If you study the history of Christianity and many of the Church's fathers although not as tribal for their own group and hostile to outsiders as the Jews, they were pro Christian and against non Christians. They saw as Christians the new chosen ones. And had plenty of negatives to say about the Jews both related to religious dogma and in general condemning what they saw as a bad character and behavior in the Jews. Especially against Christians.
It is no accident that this Christianity that is more like this exists is in a more progressive, secular age and in addition to the progressive ideology, we also had the influence of Jewish organizations playing a part too.
Its like quoting the passages in the old testament that are extremely pro Jewish, or even Jewish supremacist, but not the parts in the new testament that are negative towards the Jews.
Scofield bible is also a part of modernity and not part of historical Christianity.
It is a choice to focus on such quotes, while Christianity has other quotes and history one can focus upon. So, there is something that can be found in Christianity to promote such narratives, but it is a choice to focus upon this exclusively. And no accident that often non Christians did this.
To be fair, it matters more what is the current Christianity, or what calls itself that than historical. It still would be wrong to write off all modern Christians as self-flaggelating or pushovers towards the Jews. We should try to separate the faction that are with those that aren't. It is also true that the later can claim more authenticity.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my post, and you especially shouldn't be accusing others of not reading the posts they reply towards when you do that.
I disagreed with the above post of course. The point is that NYT and the establishment gets a lot of important things wrong and doubting them and buying into reasonable claims that are seen as conspiratorial would make you have more correct view of the world. That is because the establishment lies in favor of its agendas.
Whether "great replacement isn't happening", race, crime, war (iraq war the most notorious, even back in Vietnam with Torkin incident), or really partisan fake news (see Russiagate) are just some examples of categories you will find plenty of lies.
That even people like Alex Jones can get important things correct. The Iraq war and the rise of authoritarianism in response to war on terror are not insignificant issues. They are very important.
To think that this is an arguement for Jones being accurate in general, or me being a fanboy of his, when I said that he peddles BS too, is clearly inaccurate. Another short arguement was that in important ways some of the kooky nonsense can be less harmful than believing fanatically in current thing propaganda and doubting that instead.
You promoted in the past the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory for example, and it was a case of you getting it wrong since it is at worst a plausible theory. A lot of irrationality of our times is on irrational extreme dismisal of valid issues.
If you want to be better than even the Alex Jones of the world, you ought to be more humble about reality and stop painting things that reflect negatively on the American elite as false by default and part of conspiracy theories. Suspicious right wingers have been for the most part proven more correct for their suspicions than those booing them over the years.
And even those who get things wrong too, but also get things correct in an important way the sentiment of questioning power is more valuable than not questioning it, so I wouldn't be too condemning. And my problem would be more that by including the more indefensible claims, they erode the value of things that are true in their arguments. We don't live in an age of overt paranoia against elites but in an age of lack of sufficient accountability.
The NYT and the American establishment lie and trying to manipulate people so commonly that being reasonably suspicious and willing to believe plausible conspiracy theories makes you have a much more accurate version of the world.
It isn't gambling to not trust them but it is gambling to trust them. With bad odds. Going full Alex Jones means you are going to doubt the NYT when they peddle some of their BS but also buy into some of Alex Jones BS. In 2002 for example, if you listened to Alex Jones, he argued this:
To Jones, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were part of a larger move to eliminate civil rights and control the populations, including Americans, more effectively. The possibility of war in Iraq, to Jones, is part of the attempt by what he calls the New World Order to dominate the world.
“The government needed a crisis to convince the people willingly to give up their liberty in exchange for safety,” Jones writes in an introduction to his latest, two-hour film, “The Road to Tyranny.” https://www.mcall.com/2002/12/20/voices-from-outside-the-mainstream-weigh-in-on-iraq-war-threat/
Which would suggest against the Iraq War, neocon domination and authoritarian measures like the patriot act. Which isn't insane, but an example of Jones leading people in this instance to a more reasonable place than the establishment.
Having known people who believe in ghosts and aliens, they tend to be less dangerous for the world than those made to follow fanatically the new current thing. Whether it is war related, or a different agenda.
Liberals as a tribe has the issue of playing a motte and bailey between opposing ethnic nationalism in general and calling identifying with it as racist, and also actually do support tribalism for their own favorite groups. They also do this for sexes. They see the nationalism for their preferred groups such as blacks, Jews, Palestinian as legitimate, while they inconsistently promote the ideology against nationalism. This inconsistency doesn't change who pushes the motte.
To take a position that is anti-ethnic identity is still in line with a left wing tradition and ideology. Whether promoted by communists, marxists, and others. The left has also promoted this ideology against any other collective identities than those defined by the left, or doesn't prioritise what they care about. The collectivism of individualism ideal, is a left wing ideal, not a centrist ideal and not a right wing ideal.
But even that part of the left had those who made a different evaluation of oppressor ethnic groups and oppressed and that related to how the left evolved.
Even if one pushes consistently an opposition of ethnic, religious, group identity, this is in fact a left wing ideology. Even if the left/liberals as a faction are in fact as a majority, and as their pervasive perspective not consistent.
Supporting ethnic nationalism only for white people as legitimate, I would consider as extreme far right. Not of course equally extreme, or even necessarily extreme for someone to prioritize white rights and be a white advocate.
In general, for any groups I do think too intense activism should be assumed to be typically immoral if your group has been getting substantial victories in favor of it at expense of others.
While to oppose nationalism only for white people should count as the extreme far left. No matter how many people who identify with this want to frame their perspective as moderation. Which unfortunately, even I rhetorically understate sometimes, due to its pervasiveness among current liberalism/leftism. As well as the fact that you can get in trouble if you are too blunt. An extreme faction becoming more influential does not change its characteristics. The USSR as an example was not a country run by moderates when the Bolshevics were the only game in town. We need to actually evaluate whether the perspective is lopsided in one, or another direction.
It is both moderate and right wing to think that white people have legitimate ethnic communities too. But in terms of identification, it tends to attract people who identify more as right wingers in certain countries. But is in fact the moderate position.
If we have to rate things on a slider from oikophobic to overly nationalist, a perspective that tolerates ethnic communities is not a controversial perspective. And also when it is inclusive of Europeans too.
It is those parts of the left I mentioned that have had a strong objection to that while others compromised with them when they went along. And of course, there are also people who oppose what I argue and oppose rights for their right wing ethnic outgroup from an explicitly ethnonationalist perspective who know they are being machiavelian about it, or actually fit more with the right in their own country.
But such populations can still support the left when abroad.
This shows the limitations of the political spectrum when it comes to nationalism, since someone's ethnonationalism for their own country which fits more with the right there, can be more compatible with the left in the context of foreign politics.
More options
Context Copy link