My problem with the Alt-Right is not that they celebrate and appreciate their own whiteness/Europeanness/Americanness/whatever, but that this is often a cover for hating, fearing, oppressing, and wanting to get rid of others.

It is white blindness to say that society villianizes all moments of white celebration, though. We're constantly lauding white accomplishments in the news, schools, culturally... We celebrate Abe Lincoln, Beethoven, Einstein, Kant, Brad Pitt, etc etc. We just generally don't recognize those things as being white-celebratory, because we just see white as normal.

By and large (and there ARE notable exceptions) minority pride is not to cast hate upon whiteness, it's just to take pride in something that often goes unappreciated in a majority white culture.

There seems to be a host of issues out there orbiting around the idea of being white, and then all those issues being conflated into one position: that of ‘privileged white males’.

It’s quite difficult to attack a culture that encompasses so much history and is behind everything we have in what was referred to as ‘the west’. I don’t know what it’s referred to now, but I know that ‘the west’ is now perjorative. And I know there’s good and bad in that history. But then that’s the history of any culture. It’s easier to reduce it down to a specific target, and it satisfies, what to me, is behind the criticism.

It’s the inability to face the world in a way that demands from the individual a whole host of responsibilities. That may not be the best term. But it resembles the teenage resentment towards authority and the irrational response towards that responsibility.

So much of the criticism and attacks on ‘white ethnicity’ are loaded with contradictions. Maybe the world really is a more scary place to live in than it’s ever been, and maybe those people feel threatened by it, but it’s irrational and immature to look to blame a specific group of people and to think that by removing them, by destroying everything it represents, your problems will disappear. It’s almost suicidal in its intent. So why would the alt-right allow such a mentality to gain a foothold, why wouldn’t they resist.

It’s the perfect weapon for the left, and it always has been, this feeding of resentment and pointing of the finger. But it’s also become something of a knowing and superior attitude to attack the alt-right, that one is more enlightened, really, it’s virtue signalling.

the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites. The alt-right is basically complaining about that and many liberals hate them for it but why?

Are they equally outraged when other ethnicities draw meaning and identity from their ethnicities? — Judaka

If the alt-right really were focussed on celebrating their own ethnicity and culture they would be:

- learning Morris dancing
- organising Shakespeare festivals
- creating book groups to read and discuss Thackeray, Dickens, Eliot and Austen
- attending poetry readings of Wordsworth, Keats and Shelley
- studying Old Saxon in order to read Beowulf in the original
- joining choirs to sing evensong and works from Tallis, Parry and Purcell
- seeking out and learning old English folk songs, and encouraging their performance

and participating in many of the other amazing outpourings of creativity that there are in Anglo-Saxon culture, just as in other cultures.

Yet, oddly, they don't do any of those things. Most of them display a contempt for all culture, English along with the rest.

And who is it that does all those things then? Well, as far as I can see, mostly the lefty liberals that the alt-right likes to despise. Academics and the like.

The average soft lefty knows ten times as much about Anglo-Saxon culture, and appreciates it ten times as much, as the alt-right bovva boys. They are not interested in celebrating their own culture. They don't even understand it. All they want is something to hate.

We can't uplift our own culture by denigrating other peoples'.

The alt-right in my view is arguing for essentially exactly the same thing that most other ethnical groups take for granted, even in the West. — Judaka

I disagree. I've never seen the Asian community talking about an Asian genocide.

And rather to talk about some tiny group of neo-nazis, it should be understood that the term "alt-right" is used as a name for generally right-wing views. Just like the leftist views can be named to be "marxist". Then one can start arguing that basically that views are essentially quite the same things that most proponents of identity-politics talk about.

I'm not sure if Judaka chose the term 'alt-right' purposely or was being a bit casual with terms.
From other things he said I took it to mean 'the right' as most of us understand it.
The alt-right, to me, seems to be defined by the liberals. The extreme right is objectionable and I'm not sure where they crossover into the right. However, it seems to me that liberals object generally to the world, or culture, they believe is the result of the right and their priorities.

The alt-right, to me, seems to be defined by the liberals. — Brett

I think Richard Spencer started to use the term in defining how the new wave of what we would call neo-nazis and white supremacists differ from the "old" traditional right.

Now liberals can surely use the term now for everything they see bad in the right, but that is a different thing.

it should be understood that the term "alt-right" is used as a name for generally right-wing views. — ssu

That's how I understand it.

I cannot pretend to have looked indepth into the political label of “alt-right” myself. I am well aware that regardless of what a person means by stating they are “alt-right” everyone now associates this term very strongly with racial prejudice.

I do think it is deeply unfair when people say they wish to preserve their nations culture as being “racist”. In this area there are double standards it seems and to simply label someone as “racist” for having some admiration of their heritage is a little myopic to say the least.

Personally I’ve been saying for years that patriotism shares a lot of features with religious organisations. I’m not a massive fan of it. Yet, I’m quite happy to celebrate humanity’s achievements, in art, science, or any other field, and refer to nations in this manner. There is certainly a degree of cultural differences that seem useful in creating both teamwork and competition that lead to good outcomes.

Aa for the whole “left” and “right” business it is a little lazy to reduce political discourse to lumping someone into category A or B to drive home a certain position you hold. I am sure we all hold multiple views on multiple issues that often lean in quite contrary directions. Talking about them openly helps us adjust our positions and constantly question why one idea works well in circumstance A but does nothing of use on circumstance B.

I’m quite happy to admit that I have some views that could paint me as being “right leaning” and some views that could paint me as “left leaning”. Obviously being human I assume my view is the best version of the “middle ground” there is, and therefore being human (aka stupid) I should be on guard and question any kind of “certainty” that appears in my mind.

Note: I don’t see how prejudice does any good either long term or short term. Identifying what is and isn’t to be taken as “prejudice” though is a whole other problem!

If a group partially defines itself by race, then maybe they feel that there are issues to do with race that aren't being addressed.

Maybe they feel frightened and alienated by the presence of other racial groups; maybe this fear leads to a kind of hatred. And then this apparent hatred is used as a way to dismiss their group. Which then feeds back into the feeling that racial issues are not being addressed.

So by dismissing these groups, someone is kind of helping to fuel these groups to become more angry, and so more extreme, when I think a better approach would be to try to address the issues these groups might have with racial differences.

By discussing racial issues people in society might end up exposing their real feelings around race, which might be a frightening prospect for them...imagine going through life trying to show everyone that they aren't at all racist, and in the process of honest discussion, they show themselves up to have some pretty strong feelings on the subject, which would usually show them to be racists....slightly embarrassing eh..?

So I suspect it is quite often closet racists who like to dismiss some groups of people, in order to reduce the chance of honest discussion...and they might use terms like 'hate'...to do this...implying that hatred somehow means that someone isn't worthy of taking seriously, is somehow less human..

Maybe ideally, some of these closet racists might like to round up these 'haters' and...well maybe have them all killed..??

Sound familiar?

It would be interesting maybe to discuss what some people would actually like to have done with any groups, including groups that partially define themselves by race.

Now liberals can surely use the term now for everything they see bad in the right — ssu

That's not what I've been seeing. I've only seen the term 'alt-right' applied to sites like Breitbart, Fox News and people like Trump, Milo Y and other white supremacists.

I have never seen it applied to Theresa May, Angela Merkel, George W Bush or John McCain, all of whom are (were, for McCain, PBUH) on the right wing of the political spectrums in their countries. For the Aussies and Kiwis, neither have I seen it applied to Malcolm Turnbull, Christopher Pyne or Simon Bridges. It has not often been applied to Morrison and Dutton, but I think there is justification for doing so.

the same people who hate the alt-right, favour multi-culturalism and the ethnic associations which are often paramount to those cultures. — Judaka

I don’t see how this is completely true. Some people back “multi-culturalism” when it suits their means. When it doesn’t they ignore it ans switch tack. To be fair I don’t always think this is a conscious action, many just get swept along in the heat of the argument and grab onto any convenient reference that is lying around - it’s always going to be a problem in any discussion that matters as emotions do tend to boil over and cloud the important underlying problem/s.

I think it would be fair to say that the whole of 'Western' society is an amalgam of left and right ideology. So I'm not sure what aspects those on the left who criticise 'white ethnicity' want removed? It does look like their target is white patriarchal history, and because history is white patriarchy ( their definition) then it's all tainted.
Why are so many liberals quick to jump on this view?

I don’t think “many liberals” are. A few making enough noise, especially with the internet to work with, can make the political landscape seem far more skewed than it really is ... yet I do admit that because of this the “skewed” view can become considered the “norm” even when it isn’t. The effects of this we’ll be able to assess in a few centuries I reckon?

I don’t think “many liberals” are. — I like sushi

I have to say I'm not sure how common it is. But there is an element out there, that should they get more power and influence, would be a real threat to the traditions of the right, and so they are regarded as a threat right now. And it's interesting to think that this white culture is owned by the right, and the left, the liberals I refer to, also believe that, as if they had no part in it.
But still Judaka has a point about the skewed view of white ethnic culture.

Your post isn't exactly on topic but that we celebrate individuals means we celebrate whiteness? Are you okay? Einstein wasn't even white, he was a Jew. That you don't know that shows how little we care about the whiteness of the people you listed. This thread isn't about the celebration of ethnicity, it's about making ethnicity interpretatively relevant, particularly in the context of culture.


I think there's lots of evidence to support the idea that the alt-right is not particularly concerned with culture but the literal whiteness of the West. An example is that they don't just care about one country but all of the West, Eastern Europe and basically any white country maintaining their whiteness. There is a belief in ethnic-states, the cultural importance of race and so on. They are not interested in Arabs and Asians going to Shakespeare fares and assimilating into Western culture. It's actually more someone like me who cares about Western culture irrespective of the ethnicities following it that should be doing what you suggest, the alt-right don't want what you're talking about.


Right, I'm not interested in talking about the strawman alt-right that people who disagree with the left need to constantly deny affiliation with. The alt-right does exist, they are not neo-nazis and their views actually kind of need to be contended with. Here's a good representation of the alt-right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MvOSyE0ow&t=2126s

The reality is that almost ALL countries in Asia, the middle east, Africa, Eastern Europe and pretty much the whole world think like the alt-right. Their culture is tied to their ethnicities and ethnic heritage and if their ethnic group were wiped out, their culture would be too. The West is unique, this is not recognised and the concerns of the alt-right are treated like toxic and hateful positions, despite the absolute prevalence of similarly minded people across the world and even within the West, they're just not white.


The alt-right has a pretty specific message and agenda, it's not really a broad stroke. I'd recommend watching the video linked earlier in my post for a better understanding. I disagree with your general sentiments about how the state of the West. Criticising multiculturalism basically needs to be accompanied by pleas that you're not a racist, arguments for reducing immigration need to come after an explanation of why you're not xenophobic. It's bad.

It's good to look at something like the "black community" (despise this term) and see what seems familiar to you and notice the hypocrisy. For many, being black means you have a unique experience, you can refer to other blacks as your "brothers" and "sisters", you share an ethnic history as former slaves, you struggle together against the greater society, you need to vote together to receive favourable outcomes for your race, you need to support your "black communities and businesses" and so on. The hypocrisy is that this is often celebrated by the left, this kind of behaviour is accepted and normal, this kind of rhetoric isn't considered racist or dangerous unless it's coming from white people. The alt-right aren't exactly the same but the similarities are striking to me.


Lots of theory wax, not exactly a wise way to try to understand something. I recommend watching the video linked earlier in this comment to get a better understanding of the alt-right.

Thanks for the reply.

What sentiments about the “West”? I don’t believe I said anything about east or west.

I’ve heard the whole “alt-right” doesn’t mean this or that and I hear what you’re saying. The problem is it was adopted by less savoury people and they’ve come to own it. This has also been a game played by more leftist positions in order to slander anyone that opposes them.

Note: I think you’re also confusing “race” with “skin color”. Not your fault given that we’ve indoctrinated to refer to “ethnic” and “cultural” differences as “race” differences. In biological terms there is no plurality of human race, but their is a cultural plurality of “cultural races”.

If want to get into broader strokes of different traditions then Western Culture includes a multiculturalist history - as do all traditions founded as they are upon empires and/or kingdoms.

In biological terms there is no plurality of human race, but their is a cultural plurality of “cultural races”. — I like sushi

I have no idea what the reaction there would be(assuming you are 'white') if you made this statement in an African country, say the DRC, in a crowded street. What do you think?

the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites. — Judaka

The more I think about this the more I realise that people are, or have been, quietly asserting their belief in being white, being part of white culture. These seem to be people just getting on with their lives, with all the hardships that go with it.
I hear the people condemning the ‘alt right’, usually on a particulate tv channel, or newspaper or magazine. Who exactly are they? They claim to feel ashamed of their white culture but they don’t behave like people who are ashamed of anything. There must be many reasons for this charade, but I can’t think of one genuine one.

Einstein wasn't even white, he was a Jew. That you don't know that shows how little we care about the whiteness of the people you listed. Thi — Judaka

I think seeing Jews as non-white is as weird as seeing Italians and Polish people as non-white.

I think you just don't want to face the fact that we think white=normal. That's white privilege, btw.

The alt-right does exist, they are not neo-nazis and their views actually kind of need to be contended with. Here's a good representation of the alt-right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MvOSyE0ow&t=2126s — Judaka

If, within 5 seconds of opening that video, I hear the phrase "the great replacement of whites", you aren't really helping your point.

Einstein wasn't even white, he was a Jew. — Judaka

That view is usually only held in specific circles though. For all practical purposes, Einstein was "white".

The reality is that almost ALL countries in Asia, the middle east, Africa, Eastern Europe and pretty much the whole world think like the alt-right. Their culture is tied to their ethnicities and ethnic heritage and if their ethnic group were wiped out, their culture would be too. — Judaka

This is painting the world with a very broad brush. Yes racism is a "natural" condition, but your statement depends on where you draw the lines with ethnicities. The middle east, for example, is traditionally multi-ethnic, going back to roman times. Religion is a more powerful identity than ethnicities in many of these regions.

The West is unique, this is not recognised and the concerns of the alt-right are treated like toxic and hateful positions, despite the absolute prevalence of similarly minded people across the world and even within the West, they're just not white. — Judaka

Western culture is also unique in plenty of other ways, so what's special about this position?

The hypocrisy is that this is often celebrated by the left, this kind of behaviour is accepted and normal, this kind of rhetoric isn't considered racist or dangerous unless it's coming from white people. The alt-right aren't exactly the same but the similarities are striking to me. — Judaka

There are historical reasons for the difference in treatment though. You may not think these are good reasons, and I'd agree, but it's dishonest to treat it as naked hypocrisy. The alt-right is not arguing from a history of actual disenfranchisement, but rather from an imagined future one.

↪ssu ↪Brett
Right, I'm not interested in talking about the strawman alt-right that people who disagree with the left need to constantly deny affiliation with. The alt-right does exist, they are not neo-nazis and their views actually kind of need to be contended with. — Judaka

The alt-right are what are called white supremacists. How much neo-nazism is there, who cares. They do talk about a peril that the 'white race' is in, on how Western culture is based on race and so on. They are fixated with race and identity politics.

↪Here's a good representation of the alt-right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MvOSyE0ow&t=2126s — Judaka

At least after this representation it should be obvious that Jordan Peterson isn't a spokesperson of the alt-right and yes, they the alt-right really do want to co-opt him (why otherwise this bizarre speech about interpreting Peterson by a third person).

Yet it's very difficult to talk about the right in a unified way when you have a total idiot seen as the captain of the ship.

Lots of theory wax, not exactly a wise way to try to understand something. I recommend watching the video linked earlier in this comment to get a better understanding of the alt-right. — Judaka

I'm always open to criticism, and often change my mind on things.
I don't mind if you poke a hole or two in any of my posts, and I will see if I can counter the poke, or agree with it.

White supremacists certainly don't agree but I don't see the point in arguing with you. What you're saying has actually nothing to do with the topic NKBJ, this isn't a thread about white privilege or whether whiteness is celebrated. Those are difficult topics that you can make your own thread about if you wish.


Watch the video or don't, don't give me half-assed comments. As for Einstein, I didn't realise Jews being a distinct ethnicity was a controversial subject, it is not relevant to my OP so I'll drop it. I don't even know what NKBJ is getting at or how it relates to this thread.

I don't draw the ethnic lines, I let others do that for me, as westerners we are often ignorant of different ethnicities in Africa and the middle east but the people living there aren't. The middle east as you know is a far cry from a peaceful place, there are many ethnic disputes causing wars that are being waged, not just historically but they're going on right now.

I do not know if it is accurate to say that Islam has unified the various ethnicities in the middle east, I don't think that's even close to true. Clearly, when I am naming continents, I am using a broad brush but the reason I said the alt-right had ideas which had to be contended with is that race is just significant to most people on Earth and for good reason. I don't think people are being pessimistic enough about racism, it's not as simple as disliking people who are different from you.

The alt-right are not being bested by the attitudes in the middle east, I think you'll find that the alt-right is considered more repugnant because of factors beyond the fundamental attitudinal differences towards race with other ethnic groups outside of Anglo-Saxon whites. Namely that the West is already filled with minorities, that the West is hypersensitive to white supremacy and that many in the West don't even recognise non-white racism to begin with.


White supremacy has a meaning, the alt-right are completely fixated on race and identity politics but they are not, for the most part, unconcerned with the superiority, equality or inferiority of the white race compared to other races. What links the alt-right is "white land for white people" - essentially.


I don't know that I even understand what your post is talking about, I just saw the word "maybe" too often and thought this isn't going anywhere.


I refer to your comments about liberals. I have not chosen the level of analysis for race or skin colour, the two are interchangeable when the skin colours are different for the most part. The alt-right care about "white" races, wherever they are found. I can only respond to what others have determined to be relevant to them, personally, I aim to limit the interpretative relevance of race as much as I can. Things become tricky when we start talking about culture and how well it can be divorced from race.

I don't know that I even understand what your post is talking about, I just saw the word "maybe" too often and thought this isn't going anywhere. — Judaka

yes, I find it best to be vague when I am not sure. 'maybe' just means I suggest it for debate.

Too often people are too sure of themselves..

What you're saying has actually nothing to do with the topic NKBJ, this isn't a thread about white privilege or whether whiteness is celebrated. — Judaka

It's ridiculous that you don't seem to be able to understand the connection.

I don't draw the ethnic lines, I let others do that for me, as westerners we are often ignorant of different ethnicities in Africa and the middle east but the people living there aren't. The middle east as you know is a far cry from a peaceful place, there are many ethnic disputes causing wars that are being waged, not just historically but they're going on right now. — Judaka

But this seems to speak in favor of the notion that considering ethnicity "interpretatively relevant" is a bad idea, regardless of any hypocrisy in arguing that point.

I do not know if it is accurate to say that Islam has unified the various ethnicities in the middle east, I don't think that's even close to true. Clearly, when I am naming continents, I am using a broad brush but the reason I said the alt-right had ideas which had to be contended with is that race is just significant to most people on Earth and for good reason. — Judaka

That race is significant to most people on earth is a brute fact, and not denied by anyone as far as I can see. That this is so "for good reason" is an entirely different claim, and one for which you have not provided an argument.

I don't think people are being pessimistic enough about racism, it's not as simple as disliking people who are different from you. — Judaka

Psychologically, it boils down to that though. Certainly it's very difficult to avoid altogether.

The alt-right are not being bested by the attitudes in the middle east, I think you'll find that the alt-right is considered more repugnant because of factors beyond the fundamental attitudinal differences towards race with other ethnic groups outside of Anglo-Saxon whites. — Judaka

I am sorry, but I cannot make heads or tails of that sentence. Could you rephrase?

Namely that the West is already filled with minorities, — Judaka

An odd statement to make and slip into a sentence. What does "being filled with minorities" even mean? "The West" has, for the most part, still a clearly discernable majority population.

that the West is hypersensitive to white supremacy and that many in the West don't even recognise non-white racism to begin with. — Judaka

This may be true, but as I have pointed out there are historical reasons for why this is the case. Ignoring that context isn't honest.

They’d agree? No idea what you mean here? There is only technically ONE human race. The term “race” has become so commonly misused that it is in social circles the same meaning “culture”. All humans are a member of the same species (that is a biological/genetic fact).

The problems arise when people conflate the social use (common parse and sociological jargon) with the scientific term. I meant “cultural race” as in “sociological jargon” in order to differentiate from the actually technical scientific meaning.

In that case you’re mistaken on two counts. I didn’t type either “liberal” or “west”? I think as you’ve replied to several different posts that you’ve moxed up what I said with another - no bother, you did at least make the effort to reply to everyone so well done :)

Anyway, the matter of “race” and “skin tone” being synonymous is blatantly wrong. “Culture” is admittedly a loaded term, but give that the term “race” used in this manner has literally no genetic grounding it is about cultural traditions not outward appearances. You even get americans insisting they are Irish even though they’ve never been to Ireland and East Africans insisting they are arabs. This disjoint happens within and across different arbitrary groups.

The idea of Black and/or White culture is, as you seemed to hint at as well, utterly ridiculous. That is not to say that ancestory is not worth thinking about only that ancestory of skin tone is plainly a misplaced concept given that someone can appear “white” and yet have “black” grandparents (or vice versa).

The real differences are the geographical locations and cultural traditions - which vary, as with genetics, much more within any given demographic than they do between them.

Alt-right is a term that was ruined by disingenuous accusatory overuse straight out of the gate. But the simple answer to the question in the OP is yes. The criticism is inconsistent.

The routine racism espoused by 'minority groups' doesn't deserve the free pass it gets.

The individual is the ultimate minority. The West already figured that out and will need to do so again.

You've hit me with white blindness, white privilege, white=normal and so on. These are all condescending, ideological assertions which make me really wonder about where your head is.

This thread is about whether the strong criticism of the alt-right is unreasonably not also directed at ethnic minorities because they treat alt-right differently because it's white. That isn't entirely racist, there are legitimate reasons to fear white ethnocentricism above other forms but I wanted to discuss whether or not it is the case that the alt-right is worse because they're white.

You are kind of proving that it's true because again, it is advantageous in almost any country outside the West to belong to the majority. Where that's not true, there is still a privileged ethnicity. The only culture in the world that comes close at all to some degree of fairness is the West. Are you asking me to be ashamed that we're not perfect? The west isn't perfect, everyone else is fucked and what we're left with is that the ethnic minorities in the west are spotless. They aren't racist, they aren't ethnocentric, they don't view ethnicity to be interpretatively significant? That's obviously not true, so the question remains, what's going on here? Why do we always look at the white examples of the making race interpretatively important and celebrate it when minorities do the exact same thing?

I don’t think “many liberals” are. A few making enough noise, especially with the internet to work with, can make the political landscape seem far more skewed than it really is ... yet I do admit that because of this the “skewed” view can become considered the “norm” even when it isn’t. The effects of this we’ll be able to assess in a few centuries I reckon? — I like sushi

So here, you've reference liberals and I assume you are talking about the West or a country in the west.

As for race vs skin colour, I said they're synonymous when the skin colour is different and that's only for some people like the alt-right for example. The alt-right sees a "white" race and white means your skin colour. I am with you on how absurd the whole thing is but I am trying to talk in terms that make sense for the alt-right.