This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
I'm certainly not a liberal of any variety.
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.
Er... I'm "liberal" in the classical sense, most Americans would not identify me as "a liberal" but maybe sometimes as "a libertarian." Even then I am a little too comfortable with government action for the tastes of partisan Libertarians. My progressive friends tend to think I'm too conservative and my conservative friends tend to think I'm too progressive so I don't think it would be wrong to call me a centrist, even though nobody ever does. Maybe it would be better to call me a "skeptic."
Like @Amadan I don't remember making any statements regarding mass migration specifically, in Israel or anywhere else. Even the political philosopher John Rawls (who was liberal and probably also "a liberal") believed that nations possessed qualified rights of exclusion (though I don't know if he ever elaborated on the qualifications). As a classical liberal I am skeptical of the wisdom of ethnostates, but I also see examples in history where soft ethnic cleansing seemed essential for long term peace (e.g. Greece/Turkey) and also where mass migration has collapsed empires. I conclude that I should therefore be neither "for" nor "against" mass migration, but merely open to understanding its likely impact in specific cases.
More options
Context Copy link
I won't speak for @naraburns but I do not recall him ever self-identifying as a liberal and I don't recall any such statements by him about mass migration. Maybe I missed something. That also wouldn't describe my position, though. Even though I do self-identify as a liberal.
Your litmus tests are pretty silly. Moderators aren't selected according to how we align on various issues. If you really wanted to run a poll, we'd probably fall at various places on the spectrum regarding "Zionism" and the Palestinians (personally, I don't give a shit about "Zionism" and I have little sympathy for either Israelis or Palestinians as a people, though I always have sympathy for civilians suffering war and other atrocities), but I mistrust your definitions. You wrote a lengthy rant below about "far leftists" but ironically, for being a complaint about the impossibility of centrism, I cannot see where you would allow for the existence of a genuine liberal who is not a "far leftist."
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a liberal? That's news to me!
On political compass quizzes, for what it's worth, I am dead center. In terms of self identification, I call myself a classical liberal with libertarian tendencies, and that is very much not what just "liberal" means these days, sadly.
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:
and
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.
I don't really care enough about what you wish to call me to really unwrap the tangled knot of your reasons to think that vastly different classes of people who consider each other mortal enemies are all plausibly lumped in together as liberal, even if I think it's stupid. We're not even talking about Stalinists vs Trotskyists here.
Really? What exactly is the criteria for when advocacy for HBD makes someone "break the group thing". If I join 4chan in their advocacy for "Total Nigger Death"?
If I float, I'm a liberal. If I sink, I'm a liberal, and apparently I need to hit the bottom of the pond at terminal velocity for it to count in your eyes.
People can and do have very different reasons for "hate". America and Russia hated Nazi Germany for rather different reasons.
Is this somehow relevant to the moderation of this forum? I am unsure if it is, or if you're speaking more broadly.
As I've said on record, I like the Jews in Israel or at least much prefer them to the Palestinians or the rest of the Middle East. I am less positive on the Jews in the US, who are a very sizable number, because they self-sabotage and raised the leopards that are eating their faces.
The relevant reason for why I dislike Arabs is not because they're "anti-Jew". It is because they are backward religious fanatics who can't even point to having achieved anything of importance that wasn't off the back of their luck in having liquid gold beneath their sands.
And "non-Jewish" ethnic groups comprise uh, 99% of the rest of the world? You'll find I am very neutral to them.
Who else are they supposed to hate? The Romans? Christian Evangelists? Black Israelites?
We have a very wide Overton Window here, with everyone from open pedophiles to those who want to shoot them, Jew-Defenders to Palestinian supporters, and everything in between.
As far as I can see, you prefer to lump everyone to the left of you, or even directions entirely orthogonal to the right, as "liberals", or carrying-water for them. All well and good, you're welcome to your opinion, even if I think it is entirely absurd to class me as a lib.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The moderator team is small enough that ratios of views barely matter.
1 vs 3 just feels very different from 100 vs 300.
Zorba is also still ultimate dictator. He is happy with where things are so you don't notice him. If he was not happy you'd probably notice.
Hlynka was a mod at one point, probably the farthest "right" that any moderator on this forum has been. I think hlynka would call your ethnic thinking leftist. He was always a very controversial mod. I think the controversy was more because of his personality than his opinions.
We routinely have to mod posters that we agree with, for saying things in a way that breaks the rules. Some mods find this difficult. I find it easy, because I don't like seeing my positions ineptly defended. So don't be too quick to think that viewpoint alignment with a moderator is always going to help your case. Hlynka most often butted heads with other right wingers.
More options
Context Copy link
HoffMeister probably would have become a mod if he’d wanted the job and amadan certainly isn’t a liberal. In fact none of the mods seem conventionally progressive to me.
They don't even seem "liberal", in the American sense of the word.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For better or worse, it has indeed come to that.
I'm willing to live in peace with people who are willing to live in peace with me. I don't think ethnic conflict is necessary or inevitable, and I'm willing to make sacrifices and accept losses to try to keep the peace. I think a considerable portion of Blacks problems are cultural, since we have records of them having better outcomes in the past. I think racial essentialism is stupid, and the strong version of HBD at least is foolish and destructive. I also do not believe that white Progressives' ethnicity makes them somehow less my enemy.
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.
Make of that what you will.
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.
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.
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?
So blond and blue eyed lifelong Democratic voter who hates Trump and despises the flyover rednecks, who never fired a gun and would rather die than be seen driving a pickup truck is not "white". So "whiteness", as you see it, does not have any correspondence with actual skin color.
Then, why call your ethnic identity "white"? If it is not only about skin color, but about values and beliefs, then what would you do when large part of "white" people actively reject these values and beliefs?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I understand you correctly, your claim is that:
Is this accurate, or would you like to correct my interpretation?
Liberals as a tribe has the issue of playing a motte and bailey between opposing ethnic nationalism in general and calling identifying with it as racist, and also actually do support tribalism for their own favorite groups. They also do this for sexes. They see the nationalism for their preferred groups such as blacks, Jews, Palestinian as legitimate, while they inconsistently promote the ideology against nationalism. This inconsistency doesn't change who pushes the motte.
To take a position that is anti-ethnic identity is still in line with a left wing tradition and ideology. Whether promoted by communists, marxists, and others. The left has also promoted this ideology against any other collective identities than those defined by the left, or doesn't prioritise what they care about. The collectivism of individualism ideal, is a left wing ideal, not a centrist ideal and not a right wing ideal.
But even that part of the left had those who made a different evaluation of oppressor ethnic groups and oppressed and that related to how the left evolved.
Even if one pushes consistently an opposition of ethnic, religious, group identity, this is in fact a left wing ideology. Even if the left/liberals as a faction are in fact as a majority, and as their pervasive perspective not consistent.
Supporting ethnic nationalism only for white people as legitimate, I would consider as extreme far right. Not of course equally extreme, or even necessarily extreme for someone to prioritize white rights and be a white advocate.
In general, for any groups I do think too intense activism should be assumed to be typically immoral if your group has been getting substantial victories in favor of it at expense of others.
While to oppose nationalism only for white people should count as the extreme far left. No matter how many people who identify with this want to frame their perspective as moderation. Which unfortunately, even I rhetorically understate sometimes, due to its pervasiveness among current liberalism/leftism. As well as the fact that you can get in trouble if you are too blunt. An extreme faction becoming more influential does not change its characteristics. The USSR as an example was not a country run by moderates when the Bolshevics were the only game in town. We need to actually evaluate whether the perspective is lopsided in one, or another direction.
It is both moderate and right wing to think that white people have legitimate ethnic communities too. But in terms of identification, it tends to attract people who identify more as right wingers in certain countries. But is in fact the moderate position.
If we have to rate things on a slider from oikophobic to overly nationalist, a perspective that tolerates ethnic communities is not a controversial perspective. And also when it is inclusive of Europeans too.
It is those parts of the left I mentioned that have had a strong objection to that while others compromised with them when they went along. And of course, there are also people who oppose what I argue and oppose rights for their right wing ethnic outgroup from an explicitly ethnonationalist perspective who know they are being machiavelian about it, or actually fit more with the right in their own country.
But such populations can still support the left when abroad.
This shows the limitations of the political spectrum when it comes to nationalism, since someone's ethnonationalism for their own country which fits more with the right there, can be more compatible with the left in the context of foreign politics.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
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?
To lay some cards on the table, what you're arguing seems to be that most conservatives are some flavor of white nationalist. I assume at the mild end of the spectrum you describe, this is less blood and soil rhetoric and more 'it's okay that my tabletop game club is made up entirely of white men' or 'the president should be white as the USA is a majoritarian white country.'
I just don't think it is true that progressives or liberals oppose nationalism specifically for white people. Japan may be a fargroup for progressives in the US and as such doesn't receive much attention, but I've certainly heard people express discomfort at their attitude towards foreigners/non-Japanese and a national identity built on race. Any kind of nationalism built on race makes progressives and liberals deeply uncomfortable.
Furthermore, I don't believe that conservatives writ large support carveouts and national-identity/community building based on race. Perhaps I'm typical minding, perhaps my mental model is wrong and you're right - I'd honestly encourage you to tighten up your argument to something more concise and write a top-level post to see what people think so we can get more data.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Brother, you can ask me all the questions you want. Generally I don't volunteer my opinions that often as they rub people the wrong way, but if you're polite I'll probably answer anything.
I don't believe that progressives are calling for white genocide. You can probably find some people on twitter making jokes about how they hope all white people die in a fire, which I frown upon, but I don't think it's the same thing. Assuming you mean something along the lines of demographic trends and immigration meaning that white people will be a minority in America at some point this century, I don't believe it's an explicit agenda a la Great Replacement Theory. I agree that some people would cheer at those trends which I also find distasteful.
The phrase 'anti-white racist supremacy' doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But sure, if you come up with some other negative term to describe people cheering on white people dying or being outbred then I would likely agree with using said term.
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.
But yes, I would denounce someone who supported the black equivalent of the KKK or stormfront.
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:
I had always been skeptical when progressives called conservatives and the MAGA crowd white nationalists, but here you are, espousing views that I think broad, bipartisan swathes of America would call white nationalist. I suspect that the vast majority of American conservatives disagree with your worldview, and in the old place, when this topic was discussed, the defense was invariably that 'no, conservatives don't actually believe those things.'
I disagree with the base assumptions of this statement on multiple levels, as well as most of the rest of your post, but this is already getting too long for both of us.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am possibly misunderstanding you here, but it sounds like you are saying you would consider “it’s okay that my tabletop game club is made up entirely of white men” to be a mild form of white nationalism. If so, and if that is the standard liberal view, the inferential gap between liberals and conservatives on this subject is frankly too large to overcome. No conservative I know would have the slightest problem with an all-white group of friends hanging out; they wouldn’t consider it racist, wouldn’t consider it an example of white nationalism, and would most likely think of anyone who disagrees as the genuine racist.
As far as I can understand, he would call that the moderate position, no?
I'm assuming that tabletop community would be a 'legitimate ethnic community.' But even that is fraught - if it's recognized as a 'legitimate white ethnic community' and a black person wants to join, what happens? If you just happen to have a board game group that happens to be all white I think progressives would ding you on not being inclusive enough but not call you a white nationalist, if you happen to have a white ethnic board game group that would actively exclude others based on race, then I think you deserve the label of either racist or white nationalist, no?
What if it was an exclusively black or Indian or Chinese, etc, etc. club? Which would be acceptable and why? What about subcategories of white, like Irish or British or French?
To lay my own cards on the table, I am not white, and I think forming exclusive clubs of this sort are in poor taste at best and would rather they not exist. But we do not live in that world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How do you know this? Can you accurately describe my ideology, let alone that of the other mods, and how do you know what the modal Motte poster's ideology is?
All moderators are definitely not liberals, but I'm always curious how those of you who think we're only enforcing the rules in favor of our ideology think a "neutral" forum should be run. (Sometimes the answer is basically "Don't mod at all except when people post actually illegal things," but that would be an entirely different kind of place from what most people here want.)
If you don't want to be called the L-word you must turn in the janitor badge. Anyone based enough to have cool opinions would never consider the job of internet moderator.
You misunderstand. I, personally, will still own to being a "liberal" (though obviously I'm a heterodox one). But we frequently get told that all of us are liberals, and that is not the case (and was not the case even before @FCfromSSC joined the team).
More options
Context Copy link
These comments are legitimately hilarious. I welcome my new status as boring, moderate and milquetoast.
"mod"erate
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've spent about 60 seconds on this sentence and I'm still not sure I understand. For clarity, do all 3 theys refer to the same group, that subset of liberals?
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.
I'm probably first and foremost a classical liberal, extremely libertarian, with sympathies to anarchocapitalism. I oppose nearly all progressives in some form, though they're not necessarily wrong about everything. Mainly to the extent they want to intrude upon or eradicate classical liberalism.
As a young teenager, I had a vague notion of progress, from barbaric wars to slavery to racism to the color blind attitude I embraced wholly in the 1990s. Clinton was cool, Bush and Reagan were evil empire.
But I had a libertarian history teacher who was great with insights and making conceptual connections, and read some Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman before college. Then Rothbard, Hayek, Mises. Then 9/11 happened and I moved rightward in a couple dimensions.
Am I the exception that proves the rule? Or a creature of the left?
All this to say, it's an interesting idea, but I don't buy the conclusion. I think liberalism is a concept prior to left/right, and while the left/right spectrum is useful, it fails to illuminate the nature of liberalism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link