Okay, why did you bring up that racial intolerance in South America and Africa are the fault of European colonialism? — Judaka

Because it is historical fact.

You're telling me that you had no intentions of blaming any group for this? — Judaka

It is common sense. Alt-Right is a racist group. Alt-right argues from a revisionist point of view, and argues further that their grievances come from multiculrialism, and the "Jewish conspiracy" of a take over. My position is to counter that by providing historical facts that contradict those notions. I subsequently show that through history which has a residual affect today, that whites are in no way in danger of being replaced socially or economically considering based on past history and their residual influences today there is an economic gap still in place. I therefore added that the alt-right's position is mostly irrational fear mongering because as reality would have indicated, whites are still by in large a privileged group socially and economically.

The historical facts do not speak for themselves, you've interpreted their meaning and you've interpreted that individuals should be held accountable for the actions of people of a similar race or ancestry. — Judaka

Let's start over because obviously you're not getting it. Let us bring it back to the subject at hand regarding the issue. Since you felt to coherently explain the alt-right's position, let us be clear what the alt-right stand for. According to USA Today, "the alt-right is a collection of far-right groups and people dedicated to "white ethnonationalism" in Western civilization, or the preservation of a white populace in Western countries. They view the presence of people of color, immigrants and religious minorities as a threat to their "white identity" (Source:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/07/23/alt-right-philosophy-white-identity-civil-rights/800232002/).

Southern Poverty Law does not hold the alt-right as a hate group due to its fragmentation but subgroups under the alt-right like AltRight Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia, and Alternative Right in Atlanta are considered hate groups. Now based on the aforementioned concept of what the alt-right stands for, it is essentially stating that my existence in the United States or people who look like me threatens the existence of white identity. In fact, Richard Spencer even goes far into believing that I should not be in a country that is considered "white." Richard Spencer believes that the "white man built the United States" which is obviously false considering the people who actually did the manual labor did not look Caucasian. With that being said, it is safe to say that the basis of the alt-right and their intention is racism.

As for your views about the alt-right, you aren't really making an effort, I don't want to talk about them with you. — Judaka

Well you're not making any sense regarding the subject thread. As others have pointed out here it would seem that you're presenting your premise as if you support the alt-right.

If you have reduced your claim to an observation that racism occurs in all countries, and from people of all skin tones, then that is uncontroversial. I doubt many, if any, would care to argue. It is the claim in the OP that racism is only criticised when it is done by white people that is unsupportable. — andrewk

Right

It's really hard to get reliable information about what the alt-right is and what they're not. — Judaka

If that is the case, maybe you should've done more research in what the group stands for prior to making a thread about them.

I'm trying to draw parallels between the alt-right and other groups which are not criticised for the same type of behaviour and attitudes — Judaka

That's the problem there aren't really any other groups you can compare except maybe the Nation of Islam. you couldn't compare the alt-right to BLM because for one, BLM's organization is composed of people of different ethnic backgrounds. Two, BLM asks for police transparency and accountability when it comes to unjust police shootings. Now when you use east Asian examples you'd have to be more detailed about how this runs parallel to the alt-right. I think the burden was on you to instead of writing a whole bunch of jargon, to be as specific as possible.

As you can see in the subsequent responses, you've could've presented this quite differently than how you have done thus far.

I should have chosen an entirely different way to go about it — Judaka

That you should have.

US culture appears to be a rather different thing to anything I’ve found in Europeans, Australians or Canadians. — I like sushi

Because the US culture is composed of a microcosm of other cultures that inhabit these lands that contribute to the whole of society. We are a diverse bunch and there is no single worldview we hold, and we are constantly moving away from socially conservative values to more progressive liberal values. We are an increasingly inclusive country and our ideas of the world will change and this is incompatible with the alt-right.

I mostly made the thread because I watched a video from a more reasonable youtuber who calls himself an alt-right speaker named millennial woes and got a lot of my information about the alt-right from him — Judaka

That is your problem. Instead of getting an overview of what the alt-right stands for, you decided to be influenced by the ramblings of some young kid and the fact that the person was a millennial takes the cake (no offense to millennials). As a researcher myself, I hardly take the online ramblings of someone with cultural grievances seriously unless they are substantiated by facts via research or some evidence that is unbiased that can support their view.

I think Anaxagoras is viewing this whole “alt-right” thing as purely from a US perspective? I could be wrong. — I like sushi

You are right. I am merely commenting on the alt-right here in the United States. I mean the only reason why are familiar with the alt-right is basically from the 2016 Trump presidential election.

The problem with that is that fixing the problems "for all citizens of the country" will never happen until people acknowledge the way things are. — T Clark

This is crucial in getting rid of social issues.

The problem with that is that fixing the problems "for all citizens of the country" will never happen until people acknowledge the way things are.
— T Clark

This is crucial in getting rid of social issues. — Anaxagoras

Amen.

TO ALL -

I think all that Judaka is asking (the mislabelling of “alt-right” aside) is whether or not there is a tone of hypocracy in calling “white” people racist because they are proud of their country and wish preserve and honour what they view as “quintessentially X”. To simply label such people indiscriminately as being whatever kind of racist is a tactic used by some of a more radical disposition. Ironically those on the far right with racist views intent on causes discord and recruiting people love that this is happening and purposefully fan the flames.

Humanity has lived through some seriously brutal internal struggles including physical violence, in the form of wars and genocide, and intellectual and theological battles, in the form of laws and principles of living. We’ve rise from the ashes of the battleground and have very quickly rocketted towards a world of equality - and make no mistake the change over the past couple of decades on a global scale has been dramatic! Sadly being creatures of limited physical and temporal capacity we tend to only see our immediate surroundings as a represention of what is going on in the world when in reality we’re only seeing what is going on in OUR world.

To reframe the question in the OP ... do people in countries with more stability and freedom than elsewhere have good reason to be worried about losing their stability and freedom? Hard to say, but over all I think not. I would certainly not suggest that they shouldn’t have any concern about their own freedom and stability though.

Now to look at the different elements of the western world. I’ve already mentioned that the US is different to Europe. As for Australia ... different again yet Australia does share more in common with Europe over all by my estimates - and, yes, I’ve been there. In the US a lot of teh problems extend to it’s obvious historical issues and the displacement of peoples from Africa as well as it’s political machinations in Latin America. In Europe things are quite different, likely due to the horrors of the first and second world wars in which warfare altered the attitudes countries had towards each other. Today Europe sits, as ever, between two worlds. A ravaged continent to the south (although, thankfully, Africa is slowly but surely developing well in many places), a theocracy to the east that has unfortunately avoided a period of renaissance (to expect such a transition to take place overnight is naive at best; but a slow and steady change is happening), and of course the remenants of the Soviet ideology still lingere in modern Russia.

If we’re talking about freedom and stability then the western world is doing very well compared to most of places around the globe. There is as always a price to pay because freedom doesn’t come without a serious and potentially dangerous cost. This cost is “responsibility”.

What worries me is while trying to fortify this “responsibility”, western and other equivalent progressive countries, somehow we miss that we need to put this responsiblity to use. I would say that many people living in the western world are very much blindsighted by the world they live in. Hey have no point of reference and see the world only from, as they only can, their own subjective situation. Things slump a little and they act like a hige social upheaval has happened whilst on other countries around the world such “slumps” would be deemed insignificant.

Generally speaking if the economy dips a little in more developed countries rather than crying and shouting at the government try considering that this is happening because to some degree the global wealth is being more equally distributed due to various global initiatives the main one which has by far the greatest benefit to humanity being the education of young women around the world - note: I didn;t use the term “empowerment” because I find that political term to be one used only as propaganda to play group off against group to gain votes/favour.

To sum up, what is there to say about people in western society worried about some miniscule decline in living standards and/or fear of their cultural identity being shattered? Well, I can understand this perspective, but over all it is not real, and that is not to say people shouldn’t be concerned nor ashamed of themselves or the advantages they have. In europe especially there has been concerns voiced about “immigrant” communities and I’m aware of the same in the US regarding immigrants from the americas. Careful management of this is needed. What is worrying is when such things are used to sway public opinion ... it is a more popular trend today but let’s not fool ourselves and pretend it hasn’t always been an issue throughout human history. I would say that over the last couple of centuries it has likely become more of a talking point because of the advent of clearer borders - we forget that these border never used to be enforced and that people could, in theory and in practice, move fro place to place (the main hurdle being wealth, stability and language; all of which are becoming less and less of an issue today).

Communication is borderless. It seems to me we’re clumsily stumbling around trying to figure out what to do about this new freedom and exactly what degree of responsiblilty we have. Given that in global communications today there is little to no delineation between peoples we’re more and more attracted to our physical world of borders and peoples and struggling to come to terms with the greater human community? That is basically my psychoanalysis of humanity :)

Do you ever have the same kind of suspicions towards races other than whites?


Just wondering since you use all these terms like white blindness and white privilege and it's something I think most people would just take for granted but when it's the West and white people doing it, it's much worse. We gunna talk about the Chinese ethnocentric culture which genuinely put emphasis on race rather than white people in the west who by and large, are against that way of thinking? Enough so that the alt-right is criticised the way they are.

You realise when you talk about terms like white blindness and white=normal that you're telling me about how I think as a white person right? Those things couldn't exist if white people didn't think in those ways. White privilege directly impacts and affects me but you're not making any claims based solely on skin colour?


I am not saying "alt-right" instead of racism, if I wanted to say racism then I'd just say it. here's a quote to show the direction I was trying to go in:

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

When I'm talking about nations outside of the west, I'm not talking about racism, I'm talking about ethnocentric perspectives, favouring the main race and trying to maintain ethnic hegemony. That's what the alt-right is preaching and that's the similarity I see.

Not only do I think that goes uncriticised but when we see ethnic minorities within the West talking in ethnocentric terms which I think is fairly common, this is not treated the same way as when whites talk in ethnocentric terms which for some people is a clear indication of a racist ideology. I recognise there are reasons for this which are legitimate but I wanted to ask whether or not this was consistent, whether or not we should criticise any who take race to be interpretatively relevant and in what circumstances.


I know enough about the alt-right to talk about what some of them think, I just can't tell you whether or not the majority think that way or not. Your historical facts did absolutely no such thing, you are telling me that the West is responsible for racial tensions in Africa, South America and let's throw in the middle east. Not only is that a stupid idea but what does it have to do with the topic at hand? It has nothing to do with the alt-right either. Do you consider yourself a westerner? Do you distinguish between versions of the West based on how white it was?

There's really not much point in discussing the alt-right when you see them as the white version of BLM. If they're a borderline terrorist hate group then no, I'm not saying that we should be worried other ethnicities are thinking like BLM. Honestly, I think you're the only poster I have had problems with due solely to me bringing up the alt-right, perhaps NKBJ but I knew about him before this thread and I expected trouble with him regardless.

So, we acknowledge the ethnic histories, we treat blacks differently from other races because of racialised statistics and then we aim to solve black problems. How does your racialised solution perform better than simply identifying the problems of individuals with black-skin as problems of Americans and trying to solve them as efficiently and effectively as possible? That would mean focusing more on the perpetrators of racism than the victims, solving problems without making it about race. What you're saying is really in my estimation, is not all that different from the alt-right's ethnocentric, racialised perspective. There's a moral high ground for you because you see minorities as victims, you see people as extenuations of victims of their ethnic histories but it's superficial. At the end of the day, race means too much for you, condemning that would be a step towards ending racism.

is whether or not there is a tone of hypocracy in calling “white” people racist because they are proud of their country and wish preserve and honour what they view as “quintessentially X”. — I like sushi

But that is the problem because the alt-right although not specified as a hate group, its members espouse more than simple cultural pride rhetoric. If we take the Charlottesville murder for example, the alt-right's rhetoric, which had a relationship to the death of Heather Heyer, is dangerous. this isn't about Celtic pride, or Polish pride, this is about separating whites from all other cultures. Richard Spencer himself espoused the idea that whites "built civilization." As a stark contrast, when black activist talk about black unity and black pride, it is more along the lines of unifying a fragmented culture in light of having a history of subjugation and unjust laws (e.g. Jim Crow). In other words, a battered people showing pride of their culture openly whereas before, there were actual laws against it. African-Americans, Pacific-Islanders, Asians, etc when showing pride show pride in their culture and the benefits of their culture, whereas the alt-right are more along the lines of segregation and superiority. No double standard here if you are familiar with cultural pluralism.

do people in countries with more stability and freedom than elsewhere have good reason to be worried about losing their stability and freedom? — I like sushi

How would people lose their freedom?

Your historical facts did absolutely no such thing, you are telling me that the West is responsible for racial tensions in Africa — Judaka

Actually my attempt was to answer your inquiry regarding the supposed double standard between the expressions of cultural pride by alt-right versus the expression from other cultures. Using the early European colonial model, I was attempting to explain that given the historical fact that Africans and African-American have faced social injustice, the expression of cultural pride is nothing more than a fragmented culture coming together whereas the expression of pride from the alt-right is about the continuation of privilege and white superiority. But yes, from a historical point of view, the west does indeed have an influence on the past and even present tensions of Africa but that is another discussion for another thread. I have sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim.

Do you consider yourself a westerner? — Judaka

I consider myself a citizen of the United States.

There's really not much point in discussing the alt-right when you see them as the white version of BLM. — Judaka

I never said they were, now you're expressing cognitive dissonance. I never said they were comparable in fact I was saying the opposite you just added that in there yourself, there is a word for that, it is called conjecture. I actually said using the BLM group as an example, it is more multicultural and pluralistic ergo, welcoming than alt-right.

think you're the only poster I have had problems with due solely to me bringing up the alt-right, perhaps NKBJ but I knew about him before this thread and I expected trouble with him regardless. — Judaka

I have no issue with you because I don't know you. But if I need to correct you on things I actually studied in college and was grilled on, I will. I don't sit here to correct people with an ego, I most certainly will substantiate my claims with evidence. Not just skewed evidence but historical fact, I owe you that. Now, if you choose not to accept that fact then I don't know what to tell you. If you choose to have an issue with me that is on you, but I prefer to be the adult here.

How does your racialised solution perform better than simply identifying the problems of individuals with black-skin as problems of Americans and trying to solve them as efficiently and effectively as possible? — Judaka

I never proposed a solution to begin with. Again, my position was to give you an overview of how cultural pride expressed by people of color is different than the expression by the alt-right. How one is not seen as a double standard compared to one seen as racist. The historical overview I gave was for you to understand why cultures in particular the African-American culture expresses pride and where that foundation comes from. Me highlighting points regarding slavery and mistreatment were side discussions you and I had in addition to me demonstrating my position. I'd be more than happy to purpose a solution in relation to your thread.

What you're saying is really in my estimation, is not all that different from the alt-right's ethnocentric, racialised perspective. — Judaka

And what is it that I'm saying or have said? Can you quote the sentence that gave you that impression?

There's a moral high ground for you because you see minorities as victims, you see people as extenuations of victims of their ethnic histories but it's superficial. — Judaka

I don't know where you got my overview of the historical implications of African-American pride and the experience of subsequent racism and systemic racism via laws as something that is relatable to black Americans feeling like everyday victims. There is no harm in me talking about the residual effects of slavery and racism and how it affects the experiences of black Americans today. My intent was for you to understand where I was going with that explanation, but apparently I failed because you took this to an entirely different direction.

At the end of the day, race means too much for you, condemning that would be a step towards ending racism. — Judaka

You have no clue what you're talking about. It would behoove you next time when constructing a thread to make more sense. The fact that @I like sushi has to do re-explain everything is perhaps your best indicator that maybe you confused everyone.

It is not a new tactic in the political sphere to recruit people to a hidden cause by laying out some reasonable problems and offering a quick solution to them. The problem itself may be misconceived too and that is a serious issue as we find ourselves battling away at the symptoms of the problem rather than taking things a level deeper into the causal factors that we actually can affect.

I am not stating the “fear” of loss as rational. Fear of the future is simply a disposition of humanity. We attempt to deal with this across a spectrum running from embracing change (liberalism) to holding to traditions (conservativism) - this is roughly speaking of course!

I was stating that it is unfair to associate someone with the “alt-right” just because they worry about their cultural identity being consumed (falsely or not doesn’t matter fro the point to stand; in reality I don’t think it’s as big an issue as some wish to make out). People fear change regardless of who or what they perceive themselves to be or what particular group/s they associate themselves being a memeber of.

As a process of human maturity it is inevitable that we’ll orientate ourselves into this or that group so we can occupy a seemingly meaningful place in teh world and equate this with a sense of value; be it to ourselves and/or others. I have no issue with people exploring and becoming a member of this or that club/group, even though I find some more seriously at fault than others. In this sense I’m much more for a liberal attitude so people will actively, in their youth, taste the array of fruits before them - some will leave a bitter and less than sayifying after taste, some will become addicted (dogmatic) and some will become intoxicated/poisoned to their own and others detriment. A liberal approach would seem most fitting for the youth so they’ve less chance of becoming attached to any one particular group, or any particular set of groups.

Following on from this we know as people age they become more conservative. This is a necessary repercussion of having experimented in their youth with an array of ideas and having come to settle upon a firmer sense of ground. They will inevitably warn against wholesale dramatic shifts in society, and this doesn’t necessarily mean they think change and variation is a bad thing only that from experience they knwo they’ve gotten to the position they’ve got to through an admixture of slow and steady progress and luck of circumstance.

Conflict in life in inevitable and my concern is about you to equip ourselves for conflict rather than wasting time either trying to avoid it or by trying to irradicate it - both of those approaches are suffered in the naivety of youth and they are necessary pains which some feel more strongly than others and which some will benefit from more than others.

How would people lose their freedom? — Anaxagoras

I am talking, and be clear about this, about human societies in general not any specific nation or group.

People lose their freedoms by either putting demands on the freedom of themselves or others without consequence, and/or ignoring the responsibility that comes with their freedoms.

In the above respects we’re all going to fail somewhere along the way because being a human being requires us to make mistakes and, more problematically, to confuse mistakes with success and success with mistakes. Meaning merely recognising a fault is only the first step towards correcting it and at the end of the day we’ve only truly ourselves as judge and jury (that is the weight of responsibilty).

It is an empirical fact, I suppose, that you are a citizen of the US. What is a westerner to you then? A white person? Do you realise how validating that perspective would be to the alt-right? If we're diluting the percentage of literal westerners with non-westerners then, of course, western culture is under threat. It won't be long until in America, whites will no longer be a majority (more than half) of the US population. That would essentially mean, America would have fewer westerners than westerners if we posited that were true, doesn't the alt-right have a valid concern?

You also answered the question of OP, whether the alt-right is repugnant mostly because they're white, your answer is yes. The poor black people, with their poor ethnic histories, are playing an entirely different game than whites doing exactly the same thing. Different responsibilities as a result of different racial histories and it doesn't matter if you're born rich or poor, attractive or ugly, intelligent or stupid, tall or short - none of it matters, it's just your skin colour. It's an interpretative focus on race, it's not facts, you can't even tell the difference.

You're the one telling me that half the reason they can't be compared to BLM is that BLM is more inclusive!? The other reason is that they're actually trying to do something good? So you're not comparing them but only because that would be a disservice to the BLM movement, alright. I hate BLM probably more than the alt-right, that you're only flirting with the idea of comparing them but choose not to because the BLM is better is not justification to start talking about cognitive dissonance lol.

I am not sure what you're saying you studied in college.

You want me to give quotes of you having an ethnocentric, racialised perspective while telling me you're not a westerner and blacks have different rules to whites in the same post? I don't really see the point. You've already demonstrated that you have a collectivist, racialised way of looking at history and the present. The majority of imperialism done by the West were done by monarchies, 99.99% of westerners had absolutely no say in what happened and 99% had nothing to do with it or even visited Africa or South America.

You could choose to blame individuals for what happened but where does that leave you, they're all dead. Better to instead harbour contempt for the entire western culture. Black people born today in America are not slaves or Africans, they're individuals who should be held accountable for destructive, racialised perspectives and they're not beholden to the history of their ancestors. I'm not denying the history, I'm denying your collectivist, racialised perspective, let's get that right. So I don't know what you learned in university but what is absolutely clear is that you don't understand the difference between a fact and an interpretation.

Now I don't know why I_like_sushi is paraphrasing me, perhaps he thinks we're not as opposed to each other as we are acting? I disagree though, I may be making errors in some of the things you think but I've heard enough to know that you're the kind of person that I wanted to criticise while making this thread. Even if we grant that me trying to use the alt-right to draw comparisons was wrong because they're far more racist, hateful and unreasonable than I've made it out, things have still been more or less as on topic as I can expect. The people who disagreed with me said enough for me to know, we wouldn't now be agreeing with each other if I changed my position on the alt-right and said they're being condemned because of what they are and not who they are.

I was fishing for clarity. I believe I framed part of what you are asking of us well enough? If not amend as you see fit.

I made no assumption about whether you and Anax are in opposition or not. I imagine you both see your positions and thoughts are reasonable and that you’re both even able to admit that miscommunication can happen regardless of opposing ideas.

Something will no doubt be pointed out by Anax so I’ll step inand do it myself:

Different responsibilities as a result of different racial histories and it doesn't matter if you're born rich or poor, attractive or ugly, intelligent or stupid, tall or short - none of it matters, it's just your skin colour. It's an interpretative focus on race, it's not facts, you can't even tell the difference. — Judaka

To nitpick this isn’t exactly how reality play out but I’m certainly not disagreeing with the sentiment. If someone is perceived (either by others or themselves) as “other” to whatever degree, we inevitably wonder if people react to us in the manner they do due to this difference or whether or not they’d have reacted differently at all if we were perceived as “one of them”. The mere underlying thought makes a difference. It’s an obvious human problem that we face everyday. The question is what we can do about it - we cannot remove this entirely.

You are right. I am merely commenting on the alt-right here in the United States. — Anaxagoras

Not only that.

Basically your view is extremely US-centric, which assumes that the US narrative is the only one that exists and everything follows it. Focus on other issues, like from the fact that not everything in the continent of Africa is explained with Western colonization (and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade), is simply unimportant. This is actually very typical, and basically a bit problematic.

Einstein wasn't even white — Judaka

So, he was Chinese? African? Native Amerindian? What?

According to some, "Caucasian" means western Europe and descendants therefrom. Broader definitions include western Europeans, plus Russians, Arabs, Iraqis, Iranians, Indians, Afghanis, and Indians. A broad definition would be consistent with language group relationships -- Greek and Sanskrit, for instance--Indo-European,

So Jews originated along the eastern Mediterranean shore. By some stories, they came from northeast (Abraham) of present day Israel. Wherever they came from they were in an area generally counted as Caucasian, or white. Jews were spread out in a diaspora before 66 AD.

So, it would seem like Einstein was probably more white than he was anything else.

Anglo Saxons are white, certainly, as are Norwegians and Finns, Latvians, Jews, and Italians. So are the French and Serbs, Greeks, Turks, etc. Caucasians are a large, diverse, multicultural assembly.

The problem is that he's perpetuating it Sushi, his only defence for his perspective is the historical inequities and injustices that took place and their role in the modern context but that's just not good enough. You're severely underestimating how apathetic we could be towards race if people like Anaxagoras changed their ways. There are some things I'm more pessimistic about like attractiveness, height and status for example but I don't believe we're genetically hardwired to care about race, it's an interpretative distinction which could be reduced.


I have debated whether to get into an argument about whether Jews are Caucasian or not but I decided it wasn't worth it because I am not Jewish and I don't really care. I have always been under the impression that there was a Jewish race and culture which was separate from the religion and after doing a bit of research because I was challenged on it, realised that I could easily find sources that confirmed and denied it and I guess I'd have to dig deeper to determine the truth. You're even talking about Indians and Iranians being causation and while you're welcome to give me an argument for whatever it is you believe, I wouldn't have said what I said if I realised people were going to dispute it so strongly and I got no real stake in what the truth is.

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. — Judaka

The problem with white supremacists, nazis, white racists, alt right, fascists, and so on is that these are all epithets tossed by liberals, SJWs, "marxists", and so on at people they don't like, for one reason or another. Most people don't identify as "white supremacists, white racists, nazis,, fascists, and so on. (Granted, some people do self-identify as Nazi or fascist, but far fewer than are accused of it.)

What do these people self-identify as? I'm not sure what terms they apply to themselves.

So, your average white man, as frustrated as everybody else is, by the many changes going on in lots of different nations, tries to find solidarity among other white men (and women, presumably), a familiar white culture, familiar sex roles, and so on, gets blasted as "white supremacists" by (usually) other whites who quite often occupy relatively privileged positions.

Deploying terms such as these tends to set up conflicting camps--virtuous multiculti preachers on one side, and wicked perpetrators of all evil in the other camp. It is difficult to parse who which side is, in fact, most objectionable.

I can barely tolerate ultra-conservative white people who would probably join the KKK if a local was available, and I loathe listening to the virtue signalers who find a white racist or a fascist under every bush. A plague on both their houses.

I think I already outlined thoroughly enough my position on the term “race” in this context. Socially speaking we’re bery much inclined to categorise all items of experience. If we coudln’t do so we wouldn’t be able to navigate in the world. It’s not a huge leap to understand that this plays out from individual to individual, and from group to group. We simply have to demarcate between experiential entities - this includes sounds, smells, colours, and of course, people - and often hidden from us our very selves! We’re not confined to the “moment”, so to speak.

I don’t think I’ve severely underestimated anything. If it’s not “race” it woudl be something else. My concern is the conflation of “race” as a cultural phenomenon with “race” as a biological phenomenon (meaning in terms of “species” not merely our bizarre neurological make-up that presents us with these rather muddled social problems). We’re are certainly wired s like facial recognition. Whilst we not bery able to see the difference between chimp faces baby’s are. In fact babies were once thought to “learn” how to hear certain tones of the language they were exposed to. This turned out to be false. The are born open to everything and hearing everything, then the neurons die out that ae not needed. We’re certainly plastic creatures, but were not unlimited and we need a sensory means to tell an apple from a rock, and an enemy from a friend - hence we approach something new with a confuson of “fear” and “curiosity”. This is something I think you’d find hard to dispute.

By pointing out what I did I seem to have revealed something you’ve not considered as a basic fact of human nature. There is in reality not a lot we can do about this. We just have to accept it and consider it so as to account for self-delusion and possible delusions in others. And if you’re correct then it could just be that you’re also guilty of the thing you’re accusing others of (we all do it, I just wish people wouldn’t make such a big deal of it! And as you see, I just did it there! Haha!)

I was stating that it is unfair to associate someone with the “alt-right” just because they worry about their cultural identity being consumed (falsely or not doesn’t matter fro the point to stand; in reality I don’t think it’s as big an issue as some wish to make out). — I like sushi

Are you familiar with Richard Spencer? Have you listened to him speak? He most certainly proclaims the opposite.

As far as I'm concerned there is too much "I think" in this discussion and not enough facts going around.

Did you read the quote you selected? I don’t see how the quote connects to your response. If you could explain it would be useful. Thanks

Let it be something else then because there are pragmatic reasons for caring about particular characteristics and traits, race is one of the worst things to be feeding us information about people. I am not denying that people categorise differences, I'm suggesting that particular differences are highlighted and used excessively for the purpose of extracting information and meaning. You can meet a black man, he's attractive, tall, intelligent, loves cricket and his ps4 but we aren't going to focus on all of these things equally. For me, it may really matter that he loves his ps4 because I love my ps4 and now I think, we're gunna be best buddies. For someone else, the fact he's black really matters and that's what they focus on.

I'm still aware that a black man is black, I just don't extract information from that, it has not much meaning to me. I want to prioritise other interpretations and prejudices over race. I am not against discrimination, prejudice, categorising people and so on, I accept these things as unchangable.


I think that people do call themselves alt-right though i generally agree that most of those terms are inherently derogatory and not used self-descriptively all too often but I do identify with your contempt for both sides.

Anglo Saxons are white, certainly, as are Norwegians and Finns, Latvians, Jews, and Italians. So are the French and Serbs, Greeks, Turks, etc. Caucasians are a large, diverse, multicultural assembly. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. And such a diverse and multicultural lot that within itself this group of people harbor resentment, xenophobia and racism towards each other. Like, uh, humans occasionally do.

Heck, in the early 20th Century Swedish eugenists (who else!) defined Finns to be of an East Baltic race that has racial ties to Mongols. Those with lighter composer (or basically better looking people) found here are naturally of Swedish origin. Having a population with the most blond and blue-eyed people in the World this might sound confusing, but this worried extremely Finns at the time. The fear was that Finns would be considered by other Europeans as (gash!) mongoloids. Hence it was a huge event that created a mass hysteria in Finland when in 1952 a Finnish 17-year countryside girl won the very first Miss Universum contest. And yes, she was a blonde.

Fair enough. I guess you can then appreciate that if you were black and living in the US that certain racist types may make you more sensitive to your environment and question whether certain perceived “mistreatment” was dished out due to stereotypical misrepresentations such as these.

I’ve been in plenty of situations around the planet where I wondered if people were treating me in a certain way due to their impression of my appearance rather than as a fellow human being. I’d be lying if I said some people most definately did NOT treat me differently and unjustly just because of how they perceived me, and that in saying this I have to admit that may judgement may well have been faulty too and I may simply be a unfriendly egotistical prick (which on occasion I imagine I either am or at least perceived to be! Haha!)

Basically your view is extremely US-centric, which assumes that the US narrative is the only one that exists and everything follows it. — ssu

Because the alt-right has been made popular by the 2016 U.S. presidency. We only know about the alt-right through the actions here. Sure there are neo-nazis and right-wing conservatives here, but if there are examples of alt-right elsewhere feel free to list them here.

Focus on other issues, like from the fact that not everything in the continent of Africa is explained with Western colonization (and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade), is simply unimportant. — ssu

I highlighted this in context, I believ0e it was meant to shed to light on the pervasive issue concerning the subject at hand.



Looks like I misread

I am not against discrimination, prejudice, categorising people and so on, I accept these things as unchangable. — Judaka

Discrimination is changeable, this is why the civil rights movement prevailed. I am so glad you're not a policymaker.

Are you serious? You must have read what I wrote before that but you still interpret me as saying racial discrimination is unchangeable and we should just accept it? You're a joke.

The problem is that he's perpetuating it Sushi, his only defence for his perspective is the historical inequities and injustices that took place and their role in the modern context but that's just not good enough. — Judaka

I've listed some current issues I mean, you just don't like the answers. Again, my opinions on the historical relevance was to answer in overview, the issues you're having in trying to demonstrate a double standard.

I seriously think you have no clue what you're talking about because it certainly is coming out in your writing.

but you still interpret me as saying racial discrimination is unchangeable and we should just accept it? — Judaka

I think you're either deficient in reading ability or reading what you want to read. I'd like to think the latter. Racism, and all that entails under that umbrella are learned, and just as these things are learned, they can be unlearned and can with reason be understood to be wrong. I'm curious to know how old are you because honestly I pray you don't write like this on school papers. It's almost like you have a thousand and one thoughts but you're conveying a different thought here. I'm doing my best to tie in my original position in the context of this thread's discussion but you're reading far too much into one thing then I have to go back and re-explain that thing and try to make sense of it to you.

I understand perfectly well that you believe in different standards for different races as a result of different racial histories. You're the one who doesn't appreciate that what I've just described is an interpretation and not something that can be called a fact. The history that took place has a causal relationship with the present but that is not what is being disputed here. What is being disputed is that the causal relationship of the past and the present justifies or warrants a particular attitude towards racial groups TODAY and that is an interpretation, not a fact.

What are you talking about? I appreciate you think racism can be unlearned, you're the one telling me that I don't think it can be unlearned because I see discrimination (not racial discrimination) in the way Sushi has laid out is just part of the way the human mind works. We value, we interpet and the result is discrimination, what I'm against is not that process but the involvement of race in that process. Primarily because race is a collectivist way of thinking and people use it to make claims without sufficient evidence.

To help the thread I suggest looking at the psychological research concerning the alt-right. To help I nominate Vox which wrote an article on the research to help. Then, come back here and reformat the actual point of the thread because we're losing touch here. here is the article:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right-unite-the-right

Er ... I think I’m done here.

Enjoy! Hope you guys find some common ground :)