I would argue that the vast, vast majority of nations outside the West have cultures that can be characterised by alt-right thinking. — Judaka

There are plenty of places where people work hard to preserve their culture. France springs to mind, where, so I am told, they have a government department that works to prevent the intrusion of English words into the language. This is fairly successful, as can be seen by comparing the large number of English words in Canadian French to the very small number used in French French.

The Jews are another group that work hard to preserve their culture, again with considerable success.

I expect there are many other examples of preservation of culture.

But as we have established, the alt-right don't care about culture. They only care about ancestry and skin colour.

You say that fixation is prevalent throughout the world and is regarded as perfectly acceptable except when it is whites. I suggest you provide an example of it, because I can't think of any. When such attitudes do arise they are condemned - for example the discrimination against Dalits in India, which is against the law, although it still happens.

I have been asked this many times in the past, I heard about her and objectivism after forming most of my opinions on this and so I suppose my answer is no. That being said, the similarities between what she says and my views is enough that one could roughly inform themselves about my views by reading her work. I won't talk too extensively about my views on individualism here, it is a subject I feel very strongly about though and I dislike collective thinking in pretty much every context, only exceptions being ones which create responsibilities to do good but even they're walking a tightrope.


France is part of the West, I am not entirely knowledgeable about Israel but somehow I imagine they do care about maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel but that's a more complicated subject.

China, Japan, South Korea are nations which are wealthy like the West, you'd assume people would want to go there but they're some of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world.

Many countries in the middle east are infamous for their treatment of workers from India and Africa. Most of the nations there are not easy to immigrate to and any lack of ethnic hegemony can be explained historically.

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism, you see the same in many countries in Eastern Europe who for the most part are also trying to maintain their ethnic hegemony. Countries in SEA are often ethnically diverse but once again, extremely racist countries with very complicated situations. India is the same once again, it's not like there's no celebration of culture, my thread was never about a celebration of culture to begin with but the ways in which people are looking through a collectivist, racial lens which is similar to the alt-right.

I would say Jews in the West are another example of alt-right thinking but it appears the Jewish race is a controversial topic so I won't bother talking about that. If you want to try to go specifically into something to analyse it more deeply, pick a country and we can do some research..


I have no interest in discussing the validity of your claims, I disagree with the way you've framed the topic to begin with. What you're saying only makes sense from a racial lens, which I don't subscribe to. You're looking to explain things in racially motivated terms which may or may not actually be relevant to explaining something like the representation in statistics of various subjects.

Ethnicity to me is the most visible way to interpret differences between people, it's also the least subjective and the most simple. If you really wanted to talk about the innate advantages one individual has over another, there would be so many things that you could focus on. Height, attractiveness, athleticism, intelligence, wealth and those are just similarly obvious and apparent ones. You could choose to become fixated on something neurological, hormonal or specific nurture cases like family circumstances, traumatic events, addictions or whatever else. The opportunities for you are endless.

There are many in this forum who choose to talk only about race and race whenever they can, you won't hear these individuals talk about something else. They bring it up in circumstances where they didn't have to, it's a fixation, an obsession. I call it an interpretative state, whereby you explain the meaning of everything using the same interpretative argument and for you, perhaps that's "this person belongs to this race". When I tell you I'm white, you've got a whole story for me don't you? You've got so much to say, you could write a small paper on it. Well, I don't like that. I seek to discredit your way of thinking, I won't contend with it by using your fixation on race.

If you can point out a particular example of racism then we're on the same team, I don't like any example of people using race to inform themselves about people. I will not deal with your race fixation, that's exactly what I'm challenging in this thread.

would argue that outside of Anglo-Saxon whites in the West, all ethnic groups think like the alt-right, sometimes less extremely and sometimes more. — Judaka

Except that basically the whole "white/caucasian" discourse is very American. In my country it's very strange and basically just imported here.

The reason is obvious. If you would make the distinction so popular in the US (and UK) of people being 'white' and basically 'coloured' or 'non-European', you would get highly unpopular statistics for the alt-right types: the population in Finland would be 97,8% whites and 2,2% 'coloured'. Naturally nobody uses this kind of division. The authorities (and the likely majority of people) would see this division as extremely racist and for the alt-right agitators promoting the idea of 'white' people being in peril here is ludicrous when whites consist of nearly 98% of the population. No, as the biggest ethnic minorities are (in order) Russians, Estonians and Swedes (which shouldn't be confused to Swedish speaking Finns, actually) are basically 'white', the discourse is simply about the evil foreigners.

First and foremost, Europeans have been are still are racist towards each other. The idea of 'whiteness' being something unifying is as strange as being black in Africa.

When I tell you I'm white, you've got a whole story for me don't you? You've got so much to say, you could write a small paper on it. — Judaka

I might be wrong but that's what Judaka is arguing against and he's arguing against it being done by other races/cultures which seems to be acceptable by so many people but is wrong of the alt right.

I shouldn't have said "for good reason" but rather the reasons for why they think race is important are fairly self-evident when you consider the relationship between culture and race that exists across the globe. Particularly when co-operation is required between ethnic groups which subscribe to different ways of thinking, it does become something more complicated than "disliking" the others. The alt-right who want to preserve white, western culture as they see it, do not have to dislike those who are immigrating to the west, many do subscribe to a belief in ethnocentric states whereby they support nations like Japan and South Korea for maintaining ethnic hegemony and want that same thing for themselves.

It's not easy to separate the beliefs of a culture (often tied to an ethnicity) and that ethnicity. Islam is the most terrifying example in my view, because it's literally an optional religion but still, criticism of it is considered hate speech and racist. I haven't been able to read the news here in Australia because of the NZ mosque shootings leading people to use that tragedy as a political means to shut down discussion about Islam and immigration. Clearly, the problems of Islam and some lunatics who shot down a lot of innocent people have nothing to do with each other but that's the way some people think.

I wouldn't argue that being scared of the alt-right because of sensitivity to racism from white people is inconsistent but rather that I am not aware of this kind of criticism of the alt-right. If we agreed that the problem with the alt-right compared to other kinds of ethnocentric political views is that the alt-right is white then I'd be satisfied with that. That is not really the answer I want to bring to people though, it's to ask whether we should extend the criticism of the alt-right to others both outside of and within the West. That is what I want and it would be undermined if we just admitted that it's fine unless you've got a history of offences such as but not limited to 18th, 19th and 20th-century racism perpetuated by whites.


Your conclusions are the same as mine.

Oh, I agree, the alt-rights views about the "white race" are absurd. It is clearly a reactionary movement to recent events portrayed on the media. In Australia, racism towards the Greeks and Italian immigrants occurred when they started immigrating here and now they're pretty much part of the family and the alt-right here doesn't even distinguish between them and other white ethnicities. I am clearly generalising when talking about "Anglo-Saxon whites thinking differently than the alt-right" and I apologise for that but I think it's necessary for me to draw a distinction between standards for whites and other races because that's what I am criticising. The visibility of the ethnocentric ideologies and terminology is limited to when it's done by whites and whites self-regulate the prominence of this way of thinking and identify it as evil in their criticism of the alt-right. Though, I do not think they are innocent of treating race to be interpretatively relevant in other ways such as shown with NKBJ and Valentinius.

There are no similar expectations for other racial groups in the west, the expectations are that they are bringing their/have their own culture and history which will enrich the west and we need to respect their differences from us. I disagree with this idea, I want anyone who thinks race/ethnicity is interpretatively relevant and important to be criticised for it and not just the alt-right.



That's right.

The point Judaka makes is so simple I hesitate to explain it further for fear of sounding patronising. But the issue is hypocrisy. If it’s wrong for the alt right to address issues of race as they do then it’s wrong of others too. If it’s not wrong of others then it’s not wrong of the alt right.

But let’s assume other cultures aren’t actually like that. We still have is an element in our own society saying that if they were like that they would be entitled to. So it doesn’t matter if they are like that or not. What does matter is the hypocrisy of those people condemning the alt right for doing what they theoretically accept in others. Either way this is hypocrisy.
So who are these people and why are they saying these things?
What they do, and it’s obvious from all the virtual signalling going on here, is make it almost impossible to discuss rationally and turn it into an issue of racism.
The real issue is political hypocrisy.

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

I disagree, and in fact that is not even accurate historically.

The alt-right is basically complaining about that and many liberals hate them for it but why? — Judaka

The alt-right is a rag tag group of whiny cry babies who also try and point fingers about others crying while they themselves cry.

"Jews will not replace us" remember?

The criticism of the alt-right shows the reality that the main frustration is not actually with ethnicities being interpretatively relevant but actually a hatred of the "white ethnicity" — Judaka

Hatred of the alt-right is deserving because death is the result or have you forgotten Charlottesville? Hatred of the alt-right stems from the fact that white nationalism has become dangerous masked by the idea that it is a benign ideology bent on isolationism.

Sadly, I think a great deal of the posters on this forum fit this description but are completely oblivious to it. — Judaka

I against white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right because nothing positive for the benefit of the human race has came out of such ideologies but irrational fear and ignorance.

Since my undertaking of internet forums as of late, I notice a lot of racially conscious young people who are often ignorant of race intersectionality. One thing I do notice about Caucasians that many are not aware (both unintentional and intentional) of their own privilege and their own racial prejudices and biases.

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism — Judaka

Due to centuries of European colonialism

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism
— Judaka

Due to centuries of European colonialism — Anaxagoras

Colonialism? As if there weren't states in Africa before colonial times? Tribalism especially in the African context is just a condescending way to describe a similar phenomenon like patriotism and nationalism.

The thing is when you say things like this:

One thing I do notice about Caucasians that many are not aware (both unintentional and intentional) of their own privilege and their own racial prejudices and biases. — Anaxogaros

You leave the door wide ope for less savoury types. Most, if not all, people are unaware of the privileges they possess. All people hold some version of prejudice towards something or someone for various partially justified and/or unjustified reasons.

Also:

Due to centuries of European colonialism

In response to:

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism — Judaka

Well, no. That is not to say colonnial rule was by any means all happy smiling faces and a joyous exchange of cultural ideas and values! Human actively has played out pretty much in the same on a global scale. Some differences here and there, and there is a benefit to having a tribal mentality that,, sadly, just hasn’t transitioned with us well as civilizations developed. Some civlizations met with a nasty end due to invasion, subjugation, disease and famine (brought on by natural events sometimes) and, of course, war.

“Race” is a bigger talking point today because it’s become a political tool, in fact it seems to have been coined in order to push this or that political argument - politics is a dirty business. Politicizing scientific theories has never turned out to be a good idea as far as I can see.

Young people in general are ignorant. It’s called “youth”

If it’s wrong for the alt right to address issues of race as they do then it’s wrong of others too. If it’s not wrong of others then it’s not wrong of the alt right. — Brett

The reason why it is inherently wrong is the same reason why certain arguments from men's rights groups can be wrong: thinking that equity is oppression. The basis of the alt-right is to maintain systemic racism by allowing whites to remain on top in all sectors of society. If we look at history European colonialists from Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, and others have all had an advantage through colonizing various lands and exploiting various cultures. Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, and indigenous beliefs are all superstition and that the culture of the white man has been indoctrinated in all these occupied cultures convincing them that their culture is primitive.

So when progressive change happens and fight for equality happens and when these disenfranchised groups learn self-love and develop schools, groups to represent their concerns to level the playing field, to the majority, whites this seems unfair. People forget whites had centuries upon centuries of benefits which propelled many of their citizens ahead of the game. Systemic racism has very often told minorities that their culture is primitive and that their phenotype is cursed using God as a proxy to condemn them. So in retrospect the alt-right is concerned with maintaining white identity not as a source of it going away, but to maintain an advantage over others.

Colonialism? As if there weren't states in Africa before colonial times? Tribalism especially in the African context is just a condescending way to describe a similar phenomenon like patriotism and nationalism. — ssu

Africa has countries, not states for one. Two, tribalism is a lot different than how the early Europeans came and how they treated indigenous tribes. These are false equivalencies you're presenting.

Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, — Anaxagoras

This is not the full picture. In most societies, where manual labour was deemed below the given aristocracy in power, people were judged by their skin tone as an indication of being a “mere” labourer rather than of some apparent “nobler blood,” or some such nonsense. It’s not merely about colonnialism.

Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, and indigenous beliefs are all superstition and that the culture of the white man has been indoctrinated in all these occupied cultures convincing them that their culture is primitive. — Anaxagoras

Tell that to Obama.

Most, if not all, people are unaware of the privileges they possess. — I like sushi

Sure many people are not aware of their privileges, but we aren't talking about many, I'm talking specifically about white people. For example a friend of mine invited another guy out who he knew for a long time. While we were drinking and making small talk, my friend's companion felt comfortable enough to tell me "hey, say white power" as if it was funny and relevant to the discussion we had. Suffice to say I was offended, but he wasn't and felt at the time there was no harm in telling someone of color to say white power in a joking manner. To him it wasn't harmful because he wasn't the target. In my life I find many Caucasians oblivious to the things they say and do, and I believe these behaviors are the result of being represented for a long time in society. I believe that when these harmful jokes, and comments are made they are inconsiderate to the pains of others which by in large is the result of the comfort they have due to their own privilege in society.

Human actively has played out pretty much in the same on a global scale — I like sushi

You misunderstand my point. The same way Indians from India have an issue with internal colorism is the same way South Americans have an issue with how they see each other. Historical European colonialism has influenced many cultures to essentially hate themselves. Not just by placing unjust systems to prevent equality, but to convince people that their way of life and who they are is the result of their own failures because of WHO they are as a culture.

Tell that to Obama. — Brett

Obama is irrelevant to the discussion.

Typical.

Some of the purported examples are just speculation. You speculate that the lack of ethnic diversity in China and Korea may be because of racism, but you have no evidence to support that.

You use the example of Israel preferring Jews, but that is not a valid example because Judaism is a cultural affiliation (including religion as an aspect of culture), and has nothing to do with ancestry or skin colour - as I pointed out above.

The other examples you gave - tribal feuds in Africa, Eastern Europe and South America, mistreatment of Africans and Indians in the Middle East, are not examples of 'accepted racism'. The words you use to describe them - 'infamous', 'difficulties', 'hegemony' - reflect how those attitudes and behaviours are criticised around the world. So they are not examples of behaviour like the alt-right's being regarded as acceptable when it manifests amongst non-Europeans. Those behaviours are decried just as is that of the alt-right, just as both should be.

I would add that, abhorrent as I find tribalism, whether in Africa, Eastern Europe or Northern Ireland, at least it has some theoretical coherence about it. It's basically about recent ancestry. The alt-right doesn't even have that. They just hate people with darker skin tones, plus anybody that is Jewish or Muslim, even if they have fair skin.

This is not the full picture. In most societies, where manual labour was deemed below the given aristocracy in power, people were judged by their skin tone as an indication of being a “mere” labourer rather than of some apparent “nobler blood,” or some such nonsense. It’s not merely about colonnialism. — I like sushi

Sigh....I take it you're unfamiliar with African diaspora...History and evidence has shown it is about colonialism....I point to the letter of King Leopold II:

"The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelize, but your evangelization must inspire above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach the n*****s to know God, this they know already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi, one Nzakomba, and what else I don’t know.

They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else’s wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they know already. Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in that part of the world. For these things, you have to keep watch on dis-interesting our savages from the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you.

Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and, “It’s very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You have to detach from them and make them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us. I make reference to their Mystic System and their war fetish – warfare protection – which they pretend not to want to abandon, and you must do everything in your power to make it disappear."

See more:https://www.africanglobe.net/africa/letter-king-leopold-ii-colonial-missionaries-heading-africa-1883/

How is that response meant to be taken by me?

Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, and indigenous beliefs are all superstition and that the culture of the white man has been indoctrinated in all these occupied cultures convincing them that their culture is primitive. — Anaxagoras

Obama doesn’t seem to have been affected by your theory, that’s my point.

Because in my post I'm specifically targeting the experiences of people of color in particular African people and you're telling me, a person of color and of African origin that it is not the full picture when in my experience and in historical fact, it is.

Yes he has, look at his presidency....No other president has ever been challenged by their origin. No other president has ever faced such racial backlash as Obama. He was not privilege in the slightest sense when it came to "race." His name was questioned. His religion was questioned. His country of origin was questioned.

Trump has a wife who abused the immigration system yet Obama had to produce a birth certificate...

Oh, I agree, the alt-rights views about the "white race" are absurd. It is clearly a reactionary movement to recent events portrayed on the media. — Judaka

And how things are portrayed in the global media is mimicked in the regional and national level, even if it doesn't fit the local situation.

I've come to the conclusion that the most simple way to look at this is that people tolerate foreingers and ethnic minorities, if these contribute financially to the society.

Nobody hates tourists. Everybody understands that tourist bring money to a society, create jobs and hence they are tolerated, even if they can be annoying. Yet if foreigners (or ethnic minorities) seem to be not contributing to the system, but exploiting the work of others, then the ugly head of xenophobia and racism appear. And if foreigners outright exploit the society in such way that they can be described as stealing the wealth, then they are foreign occupiers. And then the young men rise up in arms and there is absolutely no tolerance for the foreign entity, which basically is an enemy.

The above explains most of what is now described as an anti-immigration movement in Europe. You can call it xenophobia, racism or nativism, but the underlying issue is the same. This even describes ethnic tensions in other places where a small minority has become prosperous and seems to be 'running the place': there the nativist discourse is about the foreign minority 'exploiting' the majority.

Those that truly cherish racism and racist ideas are typically an odd, small but vocal minority themselves.

Africa has countries, not states for one. Two, tribalism is a lot different than how the early Europeans came and how they treated indigenous tribes. These are false equivalencies you're presenting. — Anaxagoras

State is a totally valid synonym for country: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

To think of Africa consisting of 'indigenous tribes' when Europeans came is again a typical condescending view. What kind of tribe as you call it was "Ethiopia" or the "Ottoman Empire"?

To think of Africa consisting of 'indigenous tribes' when Europeans came is again a typical condescending view. — ssu

Indigenous meaning, originating from a specific place or native. Are we really getting into a play with words now? If you want to call a country a state whatever.

What kind of tribe as you call it was "Ethiopia" or the "Ottoman Empire"? — ssu

Which Ethiopian tribes? Somali? Tigraway? Oromo?

Ottoman Empire? Turkic people? Khazars? What the heck is your point because it's confusing?

Seems that you indeed are confused.

The thing is that the Ottoman Empire and Ethiopia did exist as sovereign states. And they were not the only states existing in Africa in the 19th Century. Italy actually fought both of them and once got beaten by Ethiopia in 1896. Hence the idea that Europeans invaded Africa and fought there just indigenous tribes is either an ignorant or a condescending view or both.

Alt-right speakers I've listened to talk about the sanctity of white cultures, of white people having indispensable value, of white people banding together and thinking collectively. They want to secure the survival of their whites and the lands traditionally owned by whites. They want to be proud to be white, for their governments to prioritise whites over other ethnicities as the main citizens of the land. They feel the alternative is to reduce them to statistics in their performances economically, educationally and how they contribute to society.

My main challenge to people is to ask, not whether this is a good way to think or not but to discuss the prevalence of this way of thinking among ethnic groups outside of the Anglo-Saxon white citizens of Western nations. I would argue that the vast, vast majority of nations outside the West have cultures that can be characterised by alt-right thinking. Secondly, I would argue that outside of Anglo-Saxon whites in the West, all ethnic groups think like the alt-right, sometimes less extremely and sometimes more. — Judaka

I find that idea extremely dubious--that that is a common, unchallenged way to think at present, and the supposed evidence you give of it after the post above is very sketchily circumstantial at best.

I see you’ve editted the respinse since and actually added some content ... seemingly assuming I’d never heard of King Leopold? Give me an ounce of credit for knowing a little history. I was thinking more along the lines of what happened in Brasil. Most people remain oblivious to the utterly vile chapter of human history and focus being taken away by slavery in the US - I assume you know about the wholesale slaughter I’m talking about and why the “Tiger Coast” is called the tiger coast.

Because in my post I'm specifically targeting the experiences of people of color in particular African people and you're telling me, a person of color and of African origin that it is not the full picture when in my experience and in historical fact, it is. — Anaxagoras

I was referring to the “sigh” and my assumed ignorance (which is fair enough I have enough of it!)

Anyway, the point that in other parts of the world skin tone and social standing is not only down to some colonnial influence. You didn’t actually specify you were talking about Africa and it doesn’t detract from the point I was making regardless of this - if am mistaken then I guess it’s just a habit of mine to look at things in relation to each other and over all.

To return to the post I was questioning:

Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, — Anaxagoras

I was referring to the “some indigenous groups” when I commented about manual labour in the fields in the east and far east. In Africa this obviously doesn’t count (at least beyond North Africa). I’m not sure about ideas of “beauty” either. I would expect if some people’s come and invade, take over your land and start lording over you that inevitably you would want to be in their position rather than your own and therefore mimic them to gain favour. That seems like a more than reasonable psychological hypothesis. Not going to deny that.

I do think that once a people comes to your door with advances in technology and new ideas that one is somewhat likely to be interested and intrigued. Sadly such honeymoon periods were quickly ended by animalistic greed pretty much throughout the colonies. No doubt broadcasting from the US has set a certain standard of “beauty,” which is now, and has been for a while, pushing back towards less typically prominent Caucasian features.

I am not talking about the alt-right as synonymous to racism, I've laid out their views in this thread. I am scared now, if I was talking about racism, you think I would have difficulty demonstrating the existence of racism across the world? What I am saying is that there are a lot of similarities between the east Asian countries trying to maintain ethnic hegemony and what the alt-right want, similarities between the alt-right wanting whites to be prioritised in "white" countries over non-whites in the same way that governments across the world prioritise their majority races.


You disagree Anglo-Saxon whites are sensitive to interpretations based on ethnicity or that other ethnicities/races aren't sensitive to it?

As for your other comments, a lot of people are criticising you for being historically inaccurate but I don't care about that for this topic. I have a problem with you claiming that whites are responsible for things that happened before their lifetime purely because they're white. This idea of ethnic history is a huge problem in so far as negating the interpretative relevance of race, not to mention it doesn't make much sense to blame individuals for the actions of groups they belong to. I think that is an appalling way to think.

So either you're blaming people who have been dead for a long time or you're blaming people for crimes on the basis of their ethnic heritage. If it's the former, listen, it is the way it is, the cause doesn't change that and I don't see what changes based on whether we accept your beliefs or reject them.


You'll have to be more specific, I don't know what you're rejecting. I don't think I even gave any evidence in your quote. I have explained those positions in posts to others but I'm happy to extrapolate on and provide reasoning for whatever you find contentious.


I think you're correct, though the alt-right is specifically saying that they don't want people to be viewed purely in terms of what they bring to the economy because of how that minimalises the importance of preserving the white race and the individual cultures under it.