BANNED USER: personal attacks
>Unban in 3d 11h 05m
Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Banned by: @Amadan
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?
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.
Inferring from the fact that you don't think FC is 'right-wing' on this issue but rather liberal, true conservatives/'right-wing' people also support 'ethnic identifications and communities identifying with their group and interests and pursuing them.' I assume for white people?
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.
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
.
10mo 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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link