Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

I don’t care. Your biography is not a reply to anything I said. You tried to tell everybody what GamerGate is and what the supporters are like after looking at it for 30 seconds. You can say anything you like about your political history and how introspective you are, what you do will speak louder than what you say you do every time.

K: what I will do right now is go to work for day 7 of 10 straight days of work…
what I will do on Friday is protest Herr Trumpf on the local main street
and on Saturday, protest in San Francisco… those are my near term goals…
I am hoping to get a haircut along the way, but hay, you take it where you can…

Thanks for your concern

Kropotkin

While you conservatives go through your own revolution which I sincerely congratulate you all as you’ve been taking a beating the last thirty years also realize that in the shadows we anarchists are going through our own revolution as well since the last year hasn’t just opened doors for all of you but in many cases for us as well.

What is white nationalism other than Europeans wanting a homeland of their own that represents their own identity? Is that not what white nationalism is? With that I can sympathize government political correctness be damned. In every case is a white nationalist always a national socialist commonly referred to as a Nazi? I don’t think so in that the desire for an ethnic homeland is seen across the board of a variety of political views. This whole spiel that if a white person desires an identity of their own people somehow translates to Nazism is purely government propaganda and should be recognized as such.

Don’t worry Ucc, another 40 years and you’ll be an atheist nazi :wink:

I think I made a thread expressing a similar thought in the past, but I’ve noticed that when the radical right/social conservatism are condemned, such as Nazis or fascists, it is mostly criticism based on morality - that they are just unquestionably, irrefutably evil, and that no discussion is to be had there.

But when the radical left/social liberalism is condemned, such as communism, anarchism, etc. it is mostly on practical grounds so while communism may be a “good idea”, the problem is that it was just poorly executed, so the solution is either to try to execute it again, this time properly, or to try a less extreme version of it, aka a moderate leftist/liberal ideology. It is never condemned on purely moral grounds as something that is just inherently evil.

The problem with the right/conservatives in general is that they will too often punch to the right and let the other side set up Nazism/Fascism as an evil reference point, and the point of the discussion then becomes distancing themselves from this evil reference point.

The only similarity that can be drawn between the left/liberals and Nazism and fascism is the degree of control they are willing to exert to achieve their ideals, but the ideals themselves are utterly contrary.

Fact is, a conservative/rightist, no matter how moderate, will always be more similar to Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, etc. than a leftist/liberal will be, so if they let leftists/liberal determine the reference point of Nazism/fascism as evil, and the goal becomes to distance oneself from it, then the right/conservatives already lost, since they’ve conceded the moral highground to the left.

The correct response, one for which it is most likely too late now in many places, is to cut the problem in its roots, instead of snipping away tiny branches. It is to completely sweep the rug of moral superiority from the opposition. Something like the alt-right and generally the far-right does.

Hey, if I’m anything at all in 40 years, I’ll be happy.

That’s not morality, that’s what the left taught you morality was before you went right, and you’re still embracing it. That’s another part of the problem- the people questioning the left now are doing it while unconsciously embracing the assumptions the left put into their heads while they were young.

Depends on who you’re talking to. I’ve noticed libertarians, when talking amongst each other, will reject communism and anarchism on moral grounds- they say things about coercion and theft and force and liberty and such. But when you’re talking to a fully indoctrinated SJW, you simply can’t make moral arguments, because they view morality in the way you described- a bunch of cynical bullshit statements used to shame people into silence. So if you want to persuade them, the only option you have is to discuss practicalities and statistics- which of course has it’s own problems since left wing social science departments are busy churning out bullshit data to support their arguments- and of course in the absence of morality, it’s not as though there’s anything wrong with faking numbers in service of a political end.

Yes. One possible response to this is to simply embrace or ignore the terminology so it loses it’s sting- if they call you a racist, instead of getting all sweaty and trying to prove you aren’t, just shrug and say “The left calls anything they don’t like racism, I don’t really care about that”. It works, but a consequence is that you allow for actual, old-school and immoral racism to get a foothold in the right since people don’t want to be an SJW or a cuck for calling it out. Perhaps there is a middle path where you condemn the SJW for calling everything racist, and remind them how that sort of conversation makes it impossible to tell racists just from people they don’t like.

Not if you consider Maoism and Stalinism to be fascist regimes, and it’s pretty clear to me that they both were, especially Mao.

Although a nice thought, don’t bet on that one.
The world is a much, much nastier place than you know … and with age it begins to show.

How much of this stems from the identity politics played by both sides of the political spectrum?

So, on the one hand, a lot of ‘traditional’ morality, philosophy, worldview is glaringly nonsensical. A lot of it is in conflict with many other strains of traditional morality, philosophy, worldview. Tradition is a source of information about the world, but traditional beliefs are based on bad science, bad statistics, a small and, relative to what’s possible now, poorly informed idea of how the world and humans and their societies work.

At the same time, a theory of human psychology that doesn’t explain the earliest recorded thought processes is an obvious failure. There’s insight to be gained from where we come from and how we got here. Religious scriptures contain insights into the original human values, from a time when humans were less divorced from their animal roots, and there was less feedback and noise.

But given all this, to ask something like “is tradition good” is obviously meaningless. It’s good for somethings, it’s shite for others. There’s no ‘tradition’, it’s a group of mostly unrelated things that is neither monolithic nor even self-consistent. If I recommend a book that I say will help you get at your assumptions, it’s just identity politics to insist on knowing whether or not we can call it ‘tradition’.

The same is true of left and right. There are leftists, progressives, that criticize the climate on campuses and the tactics of BLM and radical feminism and the speech codes and the deplatforming and every other sin of the left. There are rightists, conservatives, who criticize Trump and the Deplorables and white nationalism and every other sin on the right. It just clouds the discussion to force anyone who self-identifies as a leftist defend the worst that the left has ever produced. Who gives a fuck if Mao or Stalin are properly left or right, if no one is actually defending what they do?

It’s a flaw, for both the left who use the concepts as cudgels and right who dismiss them all the same for the family resemblance, that the debate seems to stay pretty surface level about “homophobia”, “transphobia”, and “islamophobia”. These are pretty clearly different things; arguments in favor of concern over homophobia do not necessarily apply to islamophobia (while there appears to be debate over the genetic and social roots of sexuality, it’s clear that no one is genetically Muslim).

Since no one else has presented a solution, I’ll offer one (which I’m also trying (and perhaps failing here)): be more rigorous in your thinking and speaking. People in the process had some things right and some things wrong. People in the present have some things right and some things wrong. The only option is to get better at identifying what things are right and what things are wrong. The response in the OP to allegations of racism is exactly right: in general racism is bad because X, and though this specific thing might be called racism, it is not true that X in this case. That’s perfectly legitimate, and it preserves the ability to turn around to the neo nazis and say, “hey, you guys are endorsing X!”.

But that doesn’t work if we keep treating amorphous categories as real things. There is no left or right, there are many lefts and many rights, they are families of disjoint sets. The terms have little if any meaning, and they serve to bolster tribalism and distract from actual description and discussion of the world.

Well, the defining characteristic would be attempting to estrange an entire generation from the moral traditions of the generation before them, such that they learn ideas they are unaware used to be extremely controversial. In theory both/every side could operate in that way- but I think it’s obviously the left that is operating that way in the western world. For a conservative example, I suppose missionaries in Africa might do something similar; ensure that the next crop of tribals hears about Jesus and so on in such a way that it never occurs to them that their grandparents were pagans, and when they finally do learn it, they inevitably think their grandparents were backwards and horrible.

In an idealized world. In the actual world, fans of new-fangled beliefs tell us race doesn’t exist and a man can become a woman by wishing. Genetically modified food is dangerous in spite of the evidence, and Joe McCarthy is the one who persecuted actors and writers for being communists instead of a group called the HUAC that was run entirely by Democrats. The new orthodoxy has it’s anti-science, nonscience and outright lies every bit as much as anything that came before it. What’s more, they got where they have gotten specifically by denying everything you just said: in fact, ideas aren’t evaluated by how real they are and how well the science backs them. Even assuming for the moment that science isn’t a tool of the patriarchy, what really matters is one’s narrative. The idea that beliefs should be grounded in science and reason is a kind of story that you tell yourself because you were taught to like that story and you gain some benefit from following it. Other people with other kinds of stories are just as valid. You can tell me specifically that the old is bad and dumb and unscientific because you know when you say it to me the implication is you mean Christianity. If you said the same thing about a Muslim’s beliefs your ideological peers would fucking crucify you.

So of course it’s strange to tell me that the new replaces the old because of how rigorous and factual it is when the new replaced the old largely by denying the value of rigor and the existence of facts.

Yeah, I don’t think my point here would be to say that tradition is good or bad, but to say that access to tradition is an important way to evaluate the present.

Yeah, GamerGate would be a prime example of that- they are almost all leftists if you poll them, very strong majority in that sense. They certainly do criticize things like that. But, as they criticize them, they embrace without question the civics they were taught as children by leftists who used virtually those same methods on the previous generation. It doesn’t matter for purposes of this conversation if the leftists or the rightists are correct on any particular issue. Forget what you want them to believe. See only that there’s a bunch of people who swear by saying there’s only two genders and SJWs need to shut the fuck up and feminism is cancer and BLM are racist and all sorts of other things you’d expect alt-right people to say and also they unironically call people ‘homophobic’ if they don’t take gay marriage as an unquestioned right and reject the idea of traditional gender roles that apply to the two genders they insist are absolute. So either the left went insane in 2002 and these are just people with the common sense to see it (and in fact many of them will insist this is the case), or these people are rejecting everything the left says now and accepting everything the left said 10 years ago for some other reason; and I am proposing that their age is that reason.

In short, we react different to things that we are taught when we are young than to things we are told when we are old. Because of this, we need to go outside ourselves in order to truly question what we were taught when we were young. If we’re in a minority, then we can merely ask somebody else who was taught something else, but if our entire generation was taught the same thing, the only way to challenge it is through the written tradition of past generations.

But they did and they do. There’s a socialism class at my university that teaches Maoism uncritically- it purely discusses his philosophy and how it worked with no discussion whatsoever of what happened when he actually got into power. The professor is not a conservative.

Sure, but what is clear is that all three words end in ‘phobia’ not because the people who use them seriously mean to say that the people they brand as such are actually scared of anything, but because usage of the word ‘homophobia’ accomplished a particular political end, and they would like to repeat that success. You can debate the merits of homosexuality or the flaws of Islam all you want, but there can be no debate that the terms are each textbook cases of poisoning the well.

About what, though? Should I spend some time seriously thinking about if inter-racial marriage should be allowed for example, or am I already a horrible person for taking the time to do so, regardless of what I conclude? You’re imagining a situation in which people are free to ask about and investigate anything they wish: and they patently aren’t. Specifically, people aren’t free to ask about and investigate things that their ancestors took for granted as true even a short time ago, and this continual evolution of what questions are allowed to be asked is happening faster now: a person used to be an obselete bigot if they maintained their positions for 50 years. Looks like it takes about five now.

I feel like anybody who read your post would be able to reliably place you in one of these two categories that either don’t exist or don’t matter. Same with me.

Belief in witches is traditionally quite common, and most people in a modern society, on the right or the left, are glad to maintain the estrangement between their children and that particular traditional belief.

Perhaps a better left-targeted example would be usury: in traditional Christian morality, lending and borrowing money were prohibited (which is how Jews got many of the stereotypes they still carry, as their tradition had no such prohibition). I’m sure a good percentage of the Bernie types would love to go back to a world with no lending and borrowing of money. But we know that that world would suck because we can look at places where Islamic law continues to prohibit lending and borrowing, and the effects are as modern economic understanding would predict. Similar things can be said about private property, also traditionally absent, also continued much longer than it should in the Islamic world, and also has readily predictable negative effects.

I guess I don’t think there’s all that much for the average person to learn from the fact that an idea used to be extremely controversial. Dancing used to be extremely controversial. A lot of the controversy certain ideas generated as they changed is better off dead. It’s only the things that are still in the process of changing where it seems important. Even assuming it is important there, it’s still in the significant minority among all ideas that generated controversy as they were introduced.

While there’s a lot of anti-science on the modern left, my point was that the societies of the past just didn’t have access to things we know now. Whatever lies and failures of reasoning exist about sex and gender now don’t change the fact that there’s legitimately a lot more information about sex and gender now too. Tradition can tell us what a bunch of uninformed people thought about sex and gender. Is that more useful to the modern discussion of sex and gender than Pythagorean cosmology is to the modern discussion of astronomy?

A few points here:
One, I’m not defending any anti-science view. I think this again is an identity politics line. To show that modern science has produced insights unavailable from traditional sources, I don’t need to defend every bad idea that can be lumped into the left. One thing that modern sources have over traditional sources is access to modern science. That’s true even if some modern sources don’t make full or honest use of it.

Second, it seems relevant that there is a source of assumption-evaluating techniques that isn’t tradition. Modern rational and empirical techniques do in fact undermine assumptions.

And third, going along with my second point, it is often modern rational and empirical techniques, applied to uninformed traditional assumptions, that have led to the new replacing the old. Not always, but often (and perhaps more often in the recent past than currently).

Aren’t there rational, principled ways in which to distinguish between the ideas? Why should we assume that they are only accepting homophobia because they were taught to accept it? Isn’t it more likely that they e.g. know someone who’s openly gay and know that they aren’t going to contaminate the air with their existence?

And further to that point, I don’t think the methods being applied are the same. Homophobia seems a more appropriate term for the phenomenon it describes (or at least, it was when it was coined) than Islamophobia or even transphobia. If nothing else, the latter two were coined to borrow the political cache that homophobia already had, a cache it earned by appearing legitimate to the society into which it was introduced. Homophobia took hold because it seemed right, the others took hold because they seemed like homophobia. That’s an important distinction, and may well explain the differential reaction among the soft right of GamerGate (which, it seems to bear mentioning, borrows its cache from an earlier and more important scandal).

Is there a tension here? If the hypothesis is that it’s a difference in what we are exposed to when young vs. when old, shouldn’t the speed of bigotification remain constant?

Perhaps one point in your favor: as a result of technology, teenagers have a significantly bigger platform now than ever before, and probably the content to which people are exposed is produced by a younger author, on average, than ever before. This explanation would undermine the role of the social studies teacher and left academia generally, though.

Well, I think you and I polarize each other a bit. And tribally, I am on the left. They’re my ‘team’, so I root for them irrationally. And my speech and writing wears their colors, as it were. But I’m also often mistaken for a rightist by people on the left. As are Steven Pinker and Christina Hoff Sommers. And a lot of anti-Trump Republicans have been identified as lefties by parts of the right, while Trump himself has been identified as a closet lefty from other parts of the right. The term “regressive left” was created to refer to a section of the left that has abandoned almost all of traditional liberalism in favor of a certain set of dogmas, complete with tests of faith and believed for very tribal reasons. That’s antithetical to the enlightenment left, and yet it is the left.

So, point taken, “meaningless” is too strong. But I maintain that the terms are no longer usefully meaningful, in that saying only that someone is on the left or right tells you very little about their beliefs or political positions. Similarly, I don’t know that knowing even a significant part of a person’s constellation of beliefs and political positions will allow you to reliably place them left or right. I’m sure that many would describe me as on the right, and I imagine in some circles you could be mistaken for being on the left.

Uccisore

What assumptions did the leftists put into my head that I am embracing? If anything, you are the one who still considers Nazism, racism, and other such “boogeymen” as evil.

I mostly meant how the moderate left and right relate to the far ends of their respective spectrums. Moderate leftists don’t condemn the far left in the same way that moderate right will condemn and dissociate themselves from things far to the right. After all, what both the moderate left and right use when trying to imply their moral highground is call the other a “fascist”, “Hitler”, or “nazi” (all punching to the right), never a “Mao”, a “Stalin”, a “Lenin”, a “commie” (ok, this is sometimes used but doesn’t have nearly the same effect as ‘nazi’).

That’s where I disagree with you, about old school racism being “immoral”. Morality, as I understand it, is about categories of behaviors. Behaviors which promote group success are moral, behaviors which reduce group success are immoral. The problem is where you draw the boundaries for the group, aka, for which group you want to be successful. Nothing is universally, as in, equally for all good and bad. What is good for X may not be good for Y.

For example, if approximately 5 million white people (about 2-3 percent of whites) went all Dylan Roof on blacks in America, each killing 9, that would be good for white people, bad for black people. It would increase average IQ of the country, improve its economy, stop transfer of resources from whites to blacks by means of welfare, stop the niggerization of culture through vulgar rap music etc. etc. Funnily enough, because of black people’s dependence on white people for their high living standards, if black people did the same thing and exterminated whites, they could not maintain the high infrastructure and civilization whites created and America would soon become another Africa except even worse, so it does not necessarily also follow that it would be good for blacks to genocide whites, as long as blacks care about their current living standards at least. But it is good for black people to parasite on whites, definitely.

Of course, you can also try to reach a certain compromise and instead of promoting what is good for white people and bad for black people, you would be promoting something which is half-good, half-bad for whites, and half-good half-bad for blacks (in reality though, because of the discrepancy I pointed out above a compromise like this is actually much worse for whites than it is for blacks). But given the biological differences between the races and the past between them, such attempts would result in inherently unstable systems because one group (blacks) benefits more from that system than another group (whites), and considering that whites enslaved blacks in the past, blacks will naturally be vengeful and angry and constantly try to get compensations, etc. (I explained why in this post: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=191816&p=2640480#p2640463)

But you and I likely have drastically different moralities, so what I’m saying is just “evil” to you. Then again, I remember your remarks about nuking Japan, how it would be better to nuke Hiroshima than risk a single American life because one has a moral obligation towards their own but not towards the enemy or something like that, and I agree with that, and that example is basically about drawing a strict line between the ingroup and the outgroup and not treating everybody as an ingroup just because they’re human or something like that. So, taking that example, replace American with white and Japanese with black and you may understand where I’m coming from. Except of course that for Americans it’s a bit too late now to try to separate blacks as the outgroup, hence all the problems America is facing and will continue to face.

I mean, this is all a very predictable consequence of first treating blacks badly then accepting them into your ingroup as “equals”. You can say that racism is bad and that trying to separate races or to treat one race as an enemy is evil and what not, and ok, but it DOES have consequences, in particular, BAD consequences for whites, and are you prepared to accept that as a cost for your morality?

But Stalinism and Maoism isn’t what most people think of when they accuse somebody of being “fascist”, is it?

Dear Autsider,

Modern conservatives and liberals (Marxists) share one main thing in common, the ideal of a post-racial society.

Who wrote the history books that told you so? Do you actually know that, or are you trusting a handful of scholars (or things you overheard from other people who were trusting them) that have a vendetta against religion? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you simply can’t cite an example of what people were doing centuries ago as a reason why tradition is bad- in the absence of tradition, you haven’t an actual clue what was going on in the past. If you want to know what happened in the past unvarnished, you need to read something that was written then, not a progressive retelling by some gender studies professor. Same with usury, same with private property.

And my point is that this cuts both ways. Consider Holocaust denial. As the last person who was actually there finally dies, do you think it’s going to become more common or less common? Do you think this will make fascism less likely or more likely? Do you think the left twisting the definition of “facist” to mean "anybody to the right of Noam Chomsky helps or hinders future generations trying to sort this out?

For who? A person who is raised to think there are 15 genders and race isn’t real and sex is assigned to you by your doctor doesn’t have more information, they have less. They are in exactly the same state as a person who is taught that disease is caused by witches. Sure, they can break free of the influence of the left and find out how sex and gender actually works, assuming free speech still exists in their country enough to make it possible, but when they break free, what they are going to find is all that information that has been branded as misogyny, hate speech, regressive, and so on. And some of it actually is, and not everybody is going to be able to tell the difference.

It is when ‘being informed’ means being indoctrinated to a bunch of embrassasing left wing nonsense. From my perspective, the idea that race doesn’t exist is an example of a leftward slide into ignorance. If a person wants to break free of that ignorance, they have no choice but look up the traditional views of what you call ‘uninformed people’. Whether your right or wrong, my point is, if a person wants to find a book that treats race as a real thing, it’s going to be on a shelf right next to The Turner Diaries, because the left put it there.

Virtually nothing that I’m talking about here has anything to do with science. Every issue I raised in my opening post is either an ethical question or a matter of political science. Are you diverting this conversation to questions of hard science because it’s where you can show society has progressed? I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written above, I’m just not seeing the relevance to what I’m saying.

Your second question answers the first. An application of rational, principled method makes it obvious that scoffing at people for using the term ‘islamophobia’ while completely embracing the usage of the term ‘homophobia’ are behaving inconsistently, since both terms were created by the same ideology for the same purpose and have the same relationship to reality. A rational, principled approach is how I happened to notice there seems to be an age corrolation among people who do this.

Well of course it is; the only reason anybody could oppose gay marriage for example is if they’re a backwoods retard that’s never talked to anybody who lives in a different way from them. Hell, a person who even stops to consider the legitimacy of the gay lifestyle should feel guilty just for hesitating. I mean, that’s the conclusion of our rational, principled methods.

Yeah, that’s how I remember it! People accepted the gay lifestyle because we were all free to think about the issue and explore both sides of it, and we all just sort of came to the logical conclusion that it seemed right. It was nothing at all like the terms ‘transphobia’ or ‘islamophobia’ which are just used to make people who dissent from left wing orthodoxy look deranged and feel bad about speaking their mind. You should write a history book. Probably best to wait till after I’m dead to publish it, though.

I think because young vs. old isn’t a hard break. It’s not like precisely at age 22 you become a hard ass and stop listening to people. It’s gradual, and different for different people. We don’t all graduate from college en masse as a generation, either. Every year students graduate, and every year new professors are hired. Social media and mass communication speed things up because the ability of a progressive to shame somebody for badthink is much faster and further-reaching now. You never know when your picture might go up on Twitter for eating Chinese food with a fork or mis-appropriating black culture with your sneakers.

Eh? How would a greater influence of the young on society undermine the role of the professors teaching the classes those young people are still attending? If anything, all those young authors are megaphones for their professors.

Maybe. I tend to think that one of the consequences of social media is that people who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about are heard from more, and those are the people who are more likely to have a mixture of left and right views. Not saying that it’s impossible for a wise, well read person to divert from ideological orthodoxy, but it seems to me that the collection of stereotypically ‘leftist’ ideas and ‘rightist’ ideas are in the category they are because they are consequences of the same fundamental principles, and not happenstance.

Similarly, I don’t know that knowing even a significant part of a person’s constellation of beliefs and political positions will allow you to reliably place them left or right. I’m sure that many would describe me as on the right, and I imagine in some circles you could be mistaken for being on the left.
[/quote]

Damn, nobody is responding to my posts, why is that?

Well, that’s exactly my point though. To you, Nazism, racism, border security and patriotism are all things the left condemns with the same buzzwords, and your in rebellion to those lessons, so now all those things are on equal footing. To me, some of these things are clearly different from the others, and it’s a shame the left started muttering “facist” every time somebody waves an American flag or calls illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. The left told you that there’s no fundamental difference between a Nazi and a Republican, and by all indications you still believe it, you’re just taking the implication in a different direction.

Right, that’s a function of education as well. The far right is associated with Hitler, where as the far left is associated with, I dunno, John Lennon. The idea that Mao and Stalin and so on were leftist regimes has been scrubbed from history- Communism has never been tried, as they are fond of telling us. It’s horribly unfair to call Stalin a socialist, but Hitler? Why him and Jeff Sessions are practically the same person. So there’s a phenomenon where conservatives, who want to be respected by academics (Re: leftists) have to repeatedly disavow ‘the far right’ to prove they are reasonable. This tend among conservatives to disavow themselves so liberals will respect them is of late called ‘being a cuckservative’.

You’ll find yourself back on the left in no time then, most likely. That’s precisely how leftist ‘morality’ works: they identify some material end as the goal of society, then cook up civic planning and organization in the name of that goal: say, economic equality or what have you. Any actual moral principle in itself like liberty, charity, mercy, piety is tossed aside in the name of what the Lefty has decided is The One True Thing That Matters.

Yeah, that’s one of the problems. The other problem is that we’re actually not that good at predicting what the ends of complex systems will be, so saying “A thing is good if it makes us succeed” means that you’ve made the goodness of a thing impossible to determine for generations, or possibly ever. That’s why you have socialists witnessing the mass starvation they cause and saying “Well, it would have worked if we did it slightly differently” or “It would have worked if we gave it more time”- you can never conclusively prove that some method leads to success or not. Meanwhile, notions like “Maybe you just shouldn’t strip away everything a person owns and force them into a work camp irrespective of the economic benefits” doesn’t enter into it for them.

It might be beneficial to white people until the precedent was set, and somebody got the idea that what’s good for the blacks is good enough for the Irish, or the Protestants, or the consveratives, or the socialists, or whatever. Then some white people would be exterminated as well. It certainly wouldn’t be good for white people in South Africa. Nazi Germany would be a great example of this. OK, so they gassed the Jews for the benefit of others. But they also gassed the fags, the gypsies, Pollacks, the disabled, communists, various Christian sects, and basically anybody who expressed any disagreement with any of the above, and all of them were Aryans.

You could also try to promote what’s good for Americans, or men, or straight people, or Christians, or any other group. That’s the problem with grouping, like you were saying before. It’s easy to say that we should enact extreme policies so that the group we belong to benefits, but of course, you belong to all kinds of groups. You may do well if the powers that be decide to wipe out all the blacks. But if they decide to wipe out all the blacks and all the atheists, then you’re fucked. Problems like that are one theory for where “Maybe let’s not exterminate anybody” rules come from.

You’re just parsing numbers. Actually advocating killing a bunch of people would be evil, taking measures to see it happen would be worse.

Well, I didn’t say one has a moral obligation towards their own. I said the generals and politicians making the decision had a moral obligation to the people they are tasked with protecting. It’s not about 'They’re Japs, we’re whites/Americans, so fuck ‘em". It’s about "I was hired/elected to protect the American people, so I’'m going to end this war in a way that minimizes American casualties". Zinnat had put it to me that an American general should prefer a situation where 500 Japanese die and 500 American die to a situation in which 2000 Japanese die and no Americans die, and I said that was ridiculous.

And of course that’s all in the context of a war that’s already on, because the other side started it, too.

I think you’re taking my example of two groups at war, and applying it to society at large because, to you, every group is in perpetual warfare whether they admit it or not.

Uccisore

Key words here being “fundamental difference”, I’m not sure what you would consider as qualifying for a fundamental difference as opposed to a more superficial, regular difference. But I’m not well versed in American politics so I couldn’t comment much on Republicanism.

And I’m also not sure what you mean by equal footing when speaking of “Nazism, racism, border security and patriotism”. Are you speaking morally, perhaps?

Material end? As opposed to what kind of end, spiritual? So left-wing = materialism, right-wing = spiritualism? Well fuck, I guess I don’t exist then. Not saying you necessarily meant that, but that kinda looked like a subtle jab at me for being a right-wing atheist/non-spiritual.

You cannot hold liberty, charity, mercy etc. all to be equally valuable as moral principles, something must give. Seems to me like you’re speaking from a very specific point of view when calling something leftist or not.

It is a problem if you cannot perceive the most fundamental principles which lay underneath the complexity of any system, or if you are too frightened to accept them as they are when you see them so you resort back to delusions and/or superficiality. That is just a lame excuse made to avoid having to admit that some things which might make you uncomfortable emotionally can be very effective. I was speaking of “succeed” as in “reproductive success”, aka survival, because ultimately the future belongs to those who reproduce as they pass on the traits that made them reproduce to the next generation, for reproduction is just long-term survival. I think there’s also an expression of this same principle in economics, ‘if you subsidize something you get more of it’ or something like that, used to argue against giving people welfare and stuff like that.

There certainly would be infighting between whites, or at least less unity. I do not deny that. People tend to group with those of their kind. If whites exterminated all blacks, then they would either turn on each other, or most likely, on other races. If they exterminated other races too, there would be infighting betwen subgroups of whites either based on genes (latinos vs northern European f.e.) or memes (Catholic vs Protestant), etc. etc. I don’t deny any of this. In fact, I am fully aware of it and that is one of the reasons why I am a racist and white nationalist, for now. Because for now, infighting would mean becoming weaker and surrendering the future to the Chinese, or even worse, negroes. If whites are to lose it would be better that it is to another group of whites, to a worthy enemy.

But we do not belong to all groups equally. I may be a mammal and a human, but this does not mean I would identify equally with another mammal as I would with another human, or that I would equally identify with all subgroups of the group human equally, for that matter.

“Maybe let’s not exterminate anybody” cute, but extermination happens as we speak as certain organisms are selected over others for survival, in particular when it comes to race, whites are being exterminated. Whether it be by mass murder in death camps or not, extermination occurs anyway, and yes, there is ALWAYS violence involved in extermination, as violence is involved in all matters concerning life.

Not only group, but any living organism is necessarily in perpetual warfare by very fact that it is a living organism. To be alive is to occupy a portion of space and not permit anybody or anything else to be there, which makes life INHERENTLY violent. All life needs energy to maintain and propagate itself, and to obtain this energy it competes with other organisms, which is another thing that makes it violent. I mean, the very fact that in order to have any society at all you must threaten people with VIOLENCE should tell you how fundamental violence is to life.

iF that’s what you found key in what I wrote, I’m not sure I can help you. I will say though, that what you’re saying in this thread mirrors what you’re saying in the other thread, the abortion one I think. You’ve identified correctly that the left is the enemy of western civilization, and you’re rejecting all their tactics and terminology. In this thread, you’re reacting to the fact that they call everything they don’t like ‘racist’ by embracing all these things as if they are as equivalent as they’d like you to believe. In that other thread, you’re reacting to the fact that they call everything they like “a fundamental human right” by insisting talk of rights are just a word game people play to maintain order.

To me, the fundamental lie of the left is the equivocation, which you seem to be buying: If everything is racist, nothing is. If everything is a right, nothing is. Don’t reject rights, don’t reject the existence of immoral racism; reject the political manipulations of the left that created the equivocation in the first place.

The issue is, I can’t convince you to do this, because if I try to explain to you why, I don’t know, Nazis are bad or free speech is good or whatever, I’m going to be using the same terminology the left poisoned, and you’ll reject me as a cuckservative or whatever. So your only solution is to ‘go back in time’, i.e., read works that were written before the left started playing this game. See what racism was before the left called border security racist. See what rights were before the left called internet access a fundamental right. The problem with that, is that the left also tries to control your access to your own history. In order for you to get this information, you have to pass through a screen of progressive opinion telling you that you’re an immoral person, and the things you’re about to read are immoral, and that you better keep it a secret or you’ll be punished. That keeps most people from even bothering to try, but it does mean that the few people who DO try are willing to be moral rebels, which means they’re going to be open to things that should rightly be condemned.

Spiritual, or ideological, or social, or moral. Sure, obedience to God would be a non-material end, but so is liberty. So the alternative to the left might be spiritual but need not be. What I’m referring to is one of the key facets of socialism; that a society is measured by who has what. That’s what socialism exists; because a few people having a lot of wealth and many people having no wealth is a failure-situation regardless of other circumstances, and they try to rectify it to a ‘everybody has about the same amount of stuff’ which is a victory condition for them, regardless of other circumstances. In other words, if you are evaluating civilization by the criteria of who has the most shit, then you’ve already ceded a lot of ground to the socialist…and it’s not the only place you do so in your ideas.

Your first clause doesn’t entail the second. A conservative probably does hold liberty, charity, mercy and other things to be equally valuable, and yet acknowledges that some of them have to be sacrificied for the others from time to time anyway. This is known as the tragic view of life, it’s key to conservatism. It’s just a recognition that society isn’t perfectable. Safety is valuable, Freedom is valuable. You can’t get enough of one without sacrificing some of the other. Whichever way you go, the sacrifice is still lamentable. Too bad. Recognition of this destroys the idea of society getting better and better to some ultimate utopian point, put forward first I think by Kant.

A socialist (or a libertarian or facist for that matter) will try to pick one of these values, declare that it is THE value, and argue for why the others should always be sacrificed in the name of the one, until the one is maximized at all costs.

The fundamental principles aren’t the problem, and don’t reveal the success or failure of a system, though. Communism is fucking wonderful according to it’s fundamental principles: it fails in the limitations of human implementation, and on the meta-level of how people react to finding themselves in a communist state with communist rules to follow and exploit.

There is a similar argument for why free markets are a good thing: because people deciding what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it will always be a more accurate representation of reality than a few big brains deciding how everything ought to be according to a handful of ‘fundamental principles’.

That’s a handy defense mechanism, isn’t it? “Most people consider my ideas odious, therefore anybody who disagrees me with me must be reacting to how odious they think my ideas are.” You see the same thing out of pedophiles and such. They look for any opportunity to dismiss what you say as a mere reaction to the revolting nature of what they advocate, no matter how salient your points are.

Reproductive success is certainly very important: there’s not much point in a political schema that makes everybody happy, but wipes them all out in a generation. On the other hand, there’s no much point in a political schema that results in a huge population of miserable, ignorant degenerates that hate their lives and never create or discover anything. “Yeah but at least that horrible society will last and last” I suppose is a point in it’s favor, but it’s hardly sufficient to give it a thumbs-up.

People tend to create groups around their traits and interests. Race and sex are real things, but people also define ‘their kind’ according to ephemeral things or just plain made up things, too. This is another way in which you are accepting a basic tenet of socialism: the idea that history and society is defined by a series of demographic groups or ‘classes’ perpetually in some sort of conflict with each other. Original marxists did it with economic ‘classes’, today’s SJW variety does it with race and gender.

Why a white nationalist, and not just a nationalist? Or, why not an atheist nationalist or a whatever-else-you-are nationalist? Of all the demographics you belong to, to pick your ancestry as the one that needs to be promoted and preserved at all costs isn’t a purely objective or clear-cut decision as far as I can tell, so it seems there should be more to it than that. Sure, the easy answer is “I’m a white nationalist because I’m white and so white people’s interests are my interests”, but you could replace the word ‘white’ in that sentence with any number of things. Like for example the Real IRA could be described as Catholic Nationalists. Were they wrong to focus on a thing other than race, or is it just a matter of preference?

Yeah, people are absolutely seeking out the end of the white race, they broadcast their intentions on television and the news for all to see. I actually disagree with them, though. I don’t merely think they’re wiping out the wrong people, I think that seeking to wipe out a race is immoral regardless.
eath camps or not, extermination occurs anyway, and yes, there is ALWAYS violence involved in extermination, as violence is involved in all matters concerning life.

Sure, life is inherently violent, but it is not only violent. Just like equality (or reproduction or safety or whatever) may be good, but it’s not the only thing that is good.

I don’t consider myself a "White Nationalist"­® but I have studied it extensively over a number of years as part of my own search.

How do you know that there are people trying to exterminate Whites, but not understand where White Nationalism comes from?

From what I understand about white nationalism, the “White” part doesn’t denote political system as much as “nationalism”, “republic”, “communism” does. And of course, what we are talking about is ethno-nationalism. “White” is emphasized because in those circles it is universally understood that whites and white culture and civilization (see: western civilization) are being targeted for extinction/genocide/oppression etc. It is simultaneously understood that without whites, that white culture(s)/western civilization cannot continue as it is universally understood that culture comes from race… If all whites just disappeared and put X race in their place, western civilization would cease to exist sooner or later. The reason why race is emphasized is because previously white nations (whether implicit or explicitly defined) are being forced to go along with their own extinction. No other race’s countries are subject to the same ideology. It is a matter of survival. At current levels of immigration, the ONLY possible outcome is the extinction of whiteness. The exact form the government structure that a white nationalist nation would take isn’t defined in the label “white nationalism”, and in fact there is HUGE variation and certainly no consensus for what political system should govern a “white nationalist” state. It is as much a social description as a political one (which are sometimes the same thing).

White is emphasized because they believe it is the most important part, RIGHT NOW (and overall, because today’s reality is the threat of extinction, so it is the most important part). RIGHT NOW whites are targeted for extinction, RIGHT NOW the agenda is in play, RIGHT NOW white birth rates are horrifically low, RIGHT NOW the Marxists are manipulating the world. They are not as concerned for subgroups or subcultures, as it all means sweet dick all if there are no whites left to be concerned about them. It’s not to say atheism or catholicism or “whatever-else-you-are” is not important, it’s instead to say “wake the fuck up your very existence is threatened and it should be the most important thing to focus on”. The focus on the ancestry is because they are proud, and feel the need to carry the banner so to speak. Also because of leftist agenda. Because of the beliefs about civilization and culture, ancestry becomes extremely important because they are the roots of such. History was not a set of random/unguided/unintentional occurrences that determine where we are today, but they are very direct, very intentional events that shaped the ONLY history that COULD have happened. Ifs, ands and buts don’t mean anything. You are not privileged to be white, because if everything didn’t happen exactly as it did, then it wouldn’t be our history. There was no black “western civilization” or asian “western civilization” because there wasn’t. End of discussion. You are white because your white parents procreated, and theirs before that and so on. Unless someone wants to make an argument that luck or chance has anything to do with who is born what.

Whether a white nationalist thinks that a “white nationalist nation” should allow any immigration at all or immigration only from certain ethnicities or other qualifiers etc. is actually a matter of debate. Of course, you will find almost a false consensus because the vocal portions of the communities tend to be very aggressive and unyielding (although, it is pretty much agreed that if there is only one “white nation” it should be white in the sense that most african nations are black, and most asian nations are asian). Dissent for commonly held dogma is harshly criticized, often results in ostracization. However, I suspect that a large portion of people who flirt with white nationalism are more moderate and tend to stay on the fringe or are ultimately are turned off by the almost leftist level of herd mentality that can take place sometimes, I know I was.

The anger and the hyper aggressive, in-your-face, and boisterous personalities in white nationalism come from two areas. Angry people who have found a focus for their anger, and thus act like leftists when confronted with competing ideas. Many of them are dregs and damaged people. Others are fanatics. It also comes from frustration of seeing everything unfold in front of ones eyes, and is also a result of the confusion that is sewn into leftist education systems and anger when one has the blinders removed and start to see things for what they are. There are also various areas of large agreement for example, various bits of history that reinforce the idea that the US was founded as a “white nation”. The reason why these type of ideas are popular is because people are SO angry about things that are happening that things enough is enough, and that is that. Full stop. No negotiations.

Also, despite there of course being a segment of supremacists of varying levels of uh… enthusiasm, that commonly are considered under the umbrella of white nationalism, they are not synonymous. Again this is one of those things where I believe the vocal elements dominate the visible narrative, where a majority of people are of the “separate but ‘equal’” flavor at least from a practical standpoint.

The unreasonable portions of the communities are REALLY unreasonable, even if you were to agree with them in principle, they are just too hardcore, too extreme to represent any kind of a viable system, like any other extreme ideology. Your oversimplification of the issue quoted above and your remarks about some other subjects make me wonder though.

Well, I started this thread and in my first post I explain why I think this present culture is causing the rise of White Nationalism, so actually think I have a pretty good handle on it. White Nationalism has been emboldened by the fact that the left has destroyed the negative association of the term ‘racist’ for an entire generation of conservatives, and because, as you said, there’s a lot of hatred against white people to react to.

If white nationalism just means resisting efforts to bring about the end of Western Civilization, than every good person should be a white nationalist, even non-white people. However, in a case like that, I would think that Christian Nationalism would be even more accurate and better, since many of the things undermining western civilization right now (sexual degeneracy, radical feminism, political correctness) are not anti-white, but they are all anti Christian. I can imagine a Western Civilization that preserves our cultural traditions and history without white people a lot easier than I can imagine such a place without Christianity.

The last time I checked, this most certainly is not universally understood. It seems like what’s happening here is that the interest is in preserving western civilization, and that is taken to mean ‘obviously white people need to run everything or it all goes to shit’. It’s that second premise that is the racist one, and certainly not obvious, and needs some sort of really good evidence or argument.

Well, no. The reason why race is emphasized is because you believe only white people can ‘do western civilization’ correctly.

Sure, but Marxism is an almost purely white phenomenon. China dabbled in it for a while, but other than that you’re looking at Slavs, Germans, Swedes, and Americans. Oh, and Cuba I suppose. I agree with you that white people are being targetted, but that doesn’t mean the reasons why are racial. If you’re right that race gives rise to culture, and Hispanics were running everything, this would be a conservative, religious, stable, traditional, capitalist society. Ditto with Orthodox Jews. Blacks, I don’t know- they were sort of drug kicking and screaming out of the stone age, so it’s hard to say what ‘black culture’ looks like on its own.

No, I don’t agree. I would feel more like ‘my very existence’ was threatened if Christianity was being wiped out, as opposed to race. To be clear, I don’t want either of those things to happen and I would fight to prevent them, but just because I am white doesn’t mean I am obligated to take threats to whiteness as my #1 concern: for I am many other things as well. I am more concerned about threats to masculinity these days than I am whiteness.

Could be. You people change your fucking names every week, I’ve honestly lost track of who the hell most of you are.

I don’t think it has as much to do with the left destroying the term ‘racist’ as you do. That is a much more recent development. It plays a part for sure but it is not the most important part. People are being taught to think or are breaking the brainwashing themselves. I think the left destroying the credibility of crying racist only affects those who were otherwise part of the herd, not the aforementioned. It affected those affected by the “pop-culture” if you will.

Sure, why not? White nationalism does not have to mean you ONLY believe whites are blah blah blah. I don’t think you have a good a grasp on it as you think you do, because you are only speaking of stereotyped caricatures. Many white nationalists are perfectly supportive of brown people living in brown nations raising up their own brown “western civilizations”, and asians the same and blacks the same and so on and so forth. There is also no reason why some cultures cannot agree on certain things, exchange ideas and culture and technology etc. You are absolutely conflating white nationalism and white supremacy and xenophobia. There doesn’t HAVE to be any hate about it. Hate is a symptom.

Fine, maybe you are right, perhaps you should start up a Christian Nationalism effort. You could be just like Israel…

However, you are then completely ignoring the efforts to exterminate whites. That is the key item of importance to white nationalists, probably not christian nationalists because they would be universalists so… non-sequitur.

This is nothing but either really poor research on your behalf or you’re being willfully obtuse or disingenuous. You are also making assertions yourself about racism now. Sorry man, no dice.

Why are you saying “you believe”?

Do you deny that western civilization is “white” in origin or evolution? Refer to the above. Let all the other races have their own western civilizations if they want and are capable of it. But where were most of them when western civilization came around? And does it matter? From what I can tell by and large white nationalists don’t give a flying fuck what another race has or doesn’t have. That’s the point. Let them fly in rocket cars and eat food pills and work at the sprocket factory.

We could all interact and trade and share with each other without the problems that forced integration has caused. The overarching belief is that we must remain distinct. Haven’t you heard their mantra? ‘Asia for asians…’ blah blah

That is the belief. You are again conflating nationalism with supremacy. You may have had a good grasp on it at one point, but clearly you do not now. Come on, I know better, what’s your excuse?

If you mean those affected by, murdered by, and all that, yeah you’re right. That’s only half of the equation. And what difference does that make if you’re faced with extinction? You just deflected the whole argument for something that wasn’t a reply to what I said by saying “sure, but”.

Nobody is obligating you to do so. You are not a white nationalist, where’s the argument? You said “if” as though it wasn’t happening, so how can I argue? You say you would fight to prevent them, but obviously it isn’t your #1 concern. It is for others. Seeing as you don’t really understand it to begin with, it doesn’t surprise me that it’s not your #1 concern.

Erm, ok…? :-k

It’s not just the pop culture though, it’s the education system. The left is even more influential there.

Well, considering you just declared that culture rises from race and if black people are in charge western civilization will collapse, I think I do have a handle on it. That’s the part I disagree with- the racist part- and it’s not like I made you say it. You can’t tell me non-white people are incapable of preserving western civiliization in post one, then tell me white nationalism isn’t about white supremacy in post 2, and not expect me to see a conflict there.

Well, I don’t think there’s any need to start anything like that; I think that’s the soul of American conservatism and most people on the right already live according to something like that, even if they wouldn’t use such self-incriminating terms to describe it.

I understand that white nationalists are interested in preserving whiteness. My point is that you can’t say ‘what it’s really about is preserving western civilization’ because that’s not what whiteness is, and whiteness doesn’t ensure it. If we end up in some future situation in which we’re all a bunch of degenerate heathens estranged from our traditions, our God, and our morals- but hey, at least we’re all white- that’s not ‘preserving western civilization’, that’s preserving the white race. If you think it’s impossible for our culture to backslide into dengeracy if only most of us stay white, then you are a white supremacist.

So are you backing off the claim that non-white people can’t maintain western civilization, or are you keeping the claim but expressing your lack of interest in defending it?

I guess that would depend on if you’re calling Jews white. But yes, since commercial air travel has existed for less than a century, virtually any phenomenon associated with a location will also be associated with a race.

White nationalists having the grace to accept what they cannot change has little to do with what they advocate.

Depends on when exactly you mean. If you mean the birth of Christianity, Chinese, Indian, Arabic and some African cultures were just as advanced as we were. If you mean the birth of Greek philosophy, the same thing was true, though the list would change a bit.

You keep dropping hints that it should be obvious to me that non-white races are inferior, ‘where were they then’, ‘let them do it if they are able’, and then you tell me I’m the one doing the conflating. I’m listening to you, and reacting to what you say, and what you say is that non-white people can’t maintain western civilization.

I mean it’s origins too. It was cooked up by white people, promoted by white people, and experimented with by white people. Unless slavs don’t count as white; I am unclear on this.

Well, sure; if white nationalism is only about preserving a degree of pigmentation, than your right: I don’t care about it so much, and people who do are free to and I don’t really get it. But you made it sounds like Western Civilization was at stake or something.