How Anti-Racism Today and Racism in the Past are Actually the Same Thing - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14834155
The Immortal Goon wrote:This is not what the Alt-Right means; and it's pretty silly to say that because you don't like what you imagine other people say it means, the people that say that are the same thing now with a title you get to approve of.



Spencer, who carries the term Alt-Right proudly, says that the Alt-Right is like modern day Nazism.


I have no idea what your first sentence means. The left is like any other totalitarian view. They want to eliminate all views other than their own. It is the same whether you call it left or right. You seem to be arguing it is okay if the left does it. Not that I am surprised by that. :)
#14834156
Alt-right is like Nazism in that both are pan-national. I haven't heard much corporate type ideology from the former. Maybe their just staying quiet or maybe they don't hold this beliefs. If they are fascists you'd think they would be keen on corporatism.

The alt-right does display a concern with the 'clash of civilisations' theme. Oddly, as both alt-right and Muslim militants are radical traditionalists, the alt-right seems to be taken with the idea of war against Islam. That is one difference with mid 20th century Nazism. The Nazis were after the Slavs for living room. The alt-right don't talk of expansion, but rather fighting Muslims off.

But this is off topic.

Racism in this context is about European supremacy, right? Originally this idea was devised by Western elites to legitimate their colonial activities. Racism is a form of tribalism, there is an in group and an exploited outgroup. The out group is dehumanised by the system of belief thus making it 'not bad' to subjugate and exclude them.

From the 1970's the means of production was transferred out of countries like America and Britain. Cheaper labour could be found abroad. The old colonialism would not be acceptable in the post war world for various reasons. So the national elites needed a new ideology. They found this in globalism and identity politics.

Globalism justified the internationalisation of their corporate production base while identity politics gave them the means to blame, dehumanise and exclude the old blue collar domestic workforce from political influence. Thus denying workers/representatives any chance to establish policies that might inhibit the elites in their new goal.

So Western ordinary folk came to both identify with and also take the blame for racism as a means of justifying their exclusion. Yet it was the earlier elites who invented it. The inheritors of those elites reinvented their system of prejudice to serve their new objects, justify global capitalism and prevent Western popular resistance to their policies.

That is why anti-racism today and racism in the past are the same thing. It is a common system of belief developed by a particular class in a particular culture used to exclude whoever they need to walk over.
#14834157
The Immortal Goon wrote:Spencer, who carries the term Alt-Right proudly, says that the Alt-Right is like modern day Nazism.


Spencer is a Nazi himself so he will have an interest in conflating his section of the alt-right with the broader tent, it makes himself and his sub-group look bigger and more important.

There is Breitbart article on the anatomy of the "alt-right" which breaks down the sub-groups and their motivations, which you might find illuminating.

- An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right

Real Nazis are there, they are called 1488ers in the guide, but so are also Natural Conservatives (as opposed to fiscal or free market conservatives), NeoReactionaries, Rationalists and 4chan Meme trolls.

It is a question for the ages as to the numerical strength of each group, how much awareness there is in each section of the other sections, to what extent they are actually allied rather than just all lumped together under a single ill-fitting umbrella by the media that likes to reduce everything to simple sound bites and crude propaganda...
#14834173
Hong Wu wrote:You're not a very good troll. I keep coming up with very specific arguments and you keep not responding. For example, the criticism of Jews almost a hundred years ago was that they were insular, allegedly rich and supposedly plotting against people of different ethnicity because of regressive beliefs. This is remarkably similar to modern criticisms of conservatives, isn't it?

The truth of course is that there surely existed Jews who were insular, rich and biased against non-Jews, just as there are conservatives who fit that bill but it's hyperbole to apply that to everyone who calls themselves a conservative.

Your arguments aren't 'good'; they are hopelessly fragmented and contradictory.

Addressing this one: the accusation of being insular, rich, and discriminatory against an ethnicity is frequently made, in mainstream politics, against liberals, who are denigrated as 'coastal elites' who hate 'real (white) Americans' in the 'heartland'. The accusation of "hating America" is thrown far more often at Democrats than at Republicans. This kind of accusation is frequently made against an opponent, whether or not any evidence for it exists. That you can see it occasionally made against conservatives in no way means that 'anti-racism today and racism in the past are actually the same thing', as your ludicrous title suggests.

[And on a moderator note: don't call members 'trolls' again, or I'll delete your post.]
#14834188
@One Degree No one is using the term alt-right to defame rightists in general. Its used to defame the alt right. Making up a new term for the far left (while the term far left already exists) really just further defames the alt right. You're just pretending that alt means bad and admitting that you take all your cues from the president. I guess you aren't so independent of thought after all.
#14834197
Red_Army wrote:@One Degree No one is using the term alt-right to defame rightists in general. Its used to defame the alt right. Making up a new term for the far left (while the term far left already exists) really just further defames the alt right. You're just pretending that alt means bad and admitting that you take all your cues from the president. I guess you aren't so independent of thought after all.


I agree my thoughts are probably not as unbiased as I would like, but then I don't want to be a robot either. I am independent enough to avoid getting bogged down by defining terms. It should help understanding, but most use it to discredit other views. Most of the time we know what we are referring to even though our choice of words may have multiple meanings. I defined my meaning as 'anyone who wants to silence their opponents'. I don't care where they fit on the political spectrum or how others choose to define it. I object to what they are doing. Isn't this what it really means to be an 'independent thinker '? You simply decide right and wrong by your own beliefs rather than some proscribed belief system. It does not make me right, just my own person as much as I can be.
#14834228
One Degree wrote:Why should this be upsetting? You have a center, a right, a left, and an alt right. It makes no sense without an alt left. Extreme right and extreme left would be adequate for me. It does not matter who coined the term. The left uses it to diminish the right. Fair is fair. Personally, I would hate to think the extreme left position is the norm for all liberals.
One of the things instagrams new filter is designed to eliminate is any comment containing the word 'fat'. Is that extreme left or mainstream left?

By tradition, far left is socialism. Alt- left is an attempt to create a group that is the left leaning equivalent of alt rightest, eg white supremacists, which would be left leaning people deeply embarrassed by these white supremacists.

Also this stupid term is playing merry hell with autocorrect. That is more annoying than upsetting, but there you have it.
#14834295
SolarCross wrote:Spencer is a Nazi himself so he will have an interest in conflating his section of the alt-right with the broader tent, it makes himself and his sub-group look bigger and more important.

There is Breitbart article on the anatomy of the "alt-right" which breaks down the sub-groups and their motivations, which you might find illuminating.

- An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right

Real Nazis are there, they are called 1488ers in the guide, but so are also Natural Conservatives (as opposed to fiscal or free market conservatives), NeoReactionaries, Rationalists and 4chan Meme trolls.

It is a question for the ages as to the numerical strength of each group, how much awareness there is in each section of the other sections, to what extent they are actually allied rather than just all lumped together under a single ill-fitting umbrella by the media that likes to reduce everything to simple sound bites and crude propaganda...


Fine, fair enough. I was brought up that Nazis shouldn't be your allies. Even if you fancy yourself some kind of natural conservative or hatever, when you see the pictures of Hitler and the sieg-heil, maybe it's time to question the company you keeping.

One Degree wrote:I have no idea what your first sentence means. The left is like any other totalitarian view. They want to eliminate all views other than their own. It is the same whether you call it left or right. You seem to be arguing it is okay if the left does it. Not that I am surprised by that


I'm saying that you're imagining the "alt-left." Then you're imagining what the imaginary "alt-left" stands for. Then you're saying that your imaginary views about an imaginary group are the same as the Alt-Right, for some reason, and thus you can dismiss the whole thing.

Which is really a pretty contorted view to take.
#14834298
I'm just going to throw out there that if the company you keep is so vile that liberals and communists are aligning themselves to say "wow you really suck" then maybe it's time to review your life choices.

Seriously, I, and other not out of their goddamned minds liberals, have been agreeing with outright communists like TiG on this. You've forced liberals and communists to join rhetorical forces against the utter nonsense that some on PoFo have been defending. :|
Last edited by mikema63 on 17 Aug 2017 22:43, edited 1 time in total.
#14834299
Previously it was Judaism, today it is anything associated with western conservatism. The truth is that individual people are just individuals and some of them are bad entirely on their own, not due to the actions of anyone else.

Today in western countries, the population is very mixed. To believe that all races, genders and other kinds of identities are completely equal with each other is really to say that you believe that everyone in your country is inherently good.


I personally think there is nothing wrong with western conservatism and the majority of Europeans are culturally and politically conservative, which is why Theresa May is the Prime Minister. People demonized Judaism in the pre-war era but it was replaced with Islam and Muslims in Europe may be the most discriminated people today, comparable to the German Jews. But their actions can be blamed as a religious group, given what is going on in Europe, and Muslim extremists are inherently bad people.
#14834326
mikema63 wrote:I'm just going to throw out there that if the company you keep is so vile that liberals and communists are aligning themselves to say "wow you really suck" then maybe it's time to review your life choices.

Seriously, I, and other not out of their goddamned minds liberals, have been agreeing with outright communists like TiG on this. You've forced liberals and communists to join rhetorical forces against the utter nonsense that some on PoFo have been defending. :|


It wasn't that long ago you were calling yourself a commie, is it such a great leap? Mind you shortly before that you were the ancapiest of ancaps... so there is that. lol. Maybe one day in the future we will find you doing a bit of sieg heil yourself. :excited: :p

Honestly commies are as crazy and blood drenched as any Nazi, more so if we are honest, literally their only redeeming feature was that they were on the winning side in WW2. "History of the victors" and all that. So why you think you can brass out your actual communist associations while others with zero actual association with nazis are supposed to hang their head in shame.. Is that a double standard? Why yes! Yes it is.

For the past 60 years or more certain knuckle dragging frothy mouthed zealots as well as a lot of more well balanced people have used the term nazi and fascist as a pejorative for all manner of totally unrelated often trivial offences. Ie: "grammar nazi", "lawn nazi", "sun tan fascists".. Do that enough and the pejorative power of the word loses its sting which coincidently will make actual nazis look a lot less beyond the pale. WW2 was a long time ago now. Their worst offence was the gassing of jews which as horrendous as that was, as well as grossly unnecessary given only a tiny proportion of jews were an actual problem (bolshevists), is far from the only mass massacre in history, even today the Mongols top the charts for that sort of thing, but no one cries if some douche bag LARPs as a Mongol warrior. Why? Time is a healer.
#14834476
There have been plenty of points in history when a population began viewing foreigners as better than themselves but I'm not sure if there's ever been a time when the value of individual character was explicitly rejected as irrelevant, which is what the left does today. I personally think this is because they recognize themselves as being of bad character but since they're also cowards their bad character has no immediate repercussions. The biggest problem then is that no one does anything about them. Words like "racist" and "nazi" don't really matter anymore, a bunch of blacks who were never slaves and a bunch of whites who were never nazis are getting together and beating each other over stuff that happened decades or centuries ago because they are all assholes looking for a reason to fight.
#14834557
Hong Wu wrote:There have been plenty of points in history when a population began viewing foreigners as better than themselves but I'm not sure if there's ever been a time when the value of individual character was explicitly rejected as irrelevant, which is what the left does today.

This seem totally unrelated to what you tried to convince people about with this thread, but let's address it anyway. No, I don't think the left does think this. If you want a recent example where individual character has been explicitly rejected as irrelevant, it's the right's support for Trump. He's a conman, a narcissist, a bigot, a misogynist, who possibly has the worst 'character' of anyone in American public life. But the right has said "we don't care! He'll attack the people we want attacked. He'll give our churches power - never mind if he's the furthest from 'Christian behaviour' that we've seen in any politician".

I personally think this is because they recognize themselves as being of bad character but since they're also cowards their bad character has no immediate repercussions. The biggest problem then is that no one does anything about them. Words like "racist" and "nazi" don't really matter anymore

Again, this actually indicates the right are those ignoring character. They're saying "racist" and "nazi" don't really matter anymore.

a bunch of blacks who were never slaves and a bunch of whites who were never nazis are getting together and beating each other over stuff that happened decades or centuries ago because they are all assholes looking for a reason to fight.

In Charlottesville, the nazis (waving nazi flags, some from the National Socialists, chanting the Nazi 'blood and soil', wearing Hitler T shirts) were shouting "Jew will never replace us", and generally throwing prejudice and hatred around. The people opposed to the hate were both black and white. What they, being respectable human beings, object to was the unthinking hatred.
#14834562
Again, this actually indicates the right are those ignoring character. They're saying "racist" and "nazi" don't really matter anymore.


It never did, because we are individual humans. You base your argument upon imaginary groups to justify villifying an individual. Our failure to see our own hypocrisy is astounding.
#14834687
It is an American problem. Sadly this American mental disease has infected the rest of the world. Americans, because of their hyper-racialised history view everything in terms of racial hierachy. This means that whites are always imagined as historical oppressors and always the essential ruling class, in any country. This also applies in contexts and histories completely different from those of America, including in most European countries. Obviously anyone with any sort of intelligence and grounding in the realities of the world will know that a person's ethnicity and religion do not determine their character or value. However the American system did not traditionally recognise this fact and denied the humanity of it's black citizens. As a result of this historical oppression the notion of a perennial white ruling class and a black labouring class has been psychologically embedded into the American popular consciousness. Therefore all historic narratives are framed in the context of this particular history. The struggles of white Americans are not recognised as legitimate because of the deep sense of this historic racial-class divisions which exists in your country.

In other words, Anglos and Americans shot themselves in the foot with this racial caste system they created. Once upon a time it was used by the ruling class of England and America to rule over and divide their working class. Today it is now being used as justification for any sort of excesses against Americans and Europeans. "You cannot talk, white man, because your ancestors enslaved my people", or "Oh dear, another white male complaining about how oppressed he is! (sarcasm)". Unfortunately the Alt-Right that professes to advance the interests of "whites" has failed to redefine the narratives in a suitable way. It still enforces many of the old traditional WASP narratives about race and class.

Europe will only be free when the global south is free and when Europeans recognise the total anthropological equality of mankind.

Either we choose this:

Image

'Always together'

Or we choose to be cucks.

This is the most far right post anyone could ever write. However, most people will not understand it and write it off as leftist drivel. A thoughtful person will understand it, though.
#14834720
I'm going to sum up my opinion of your position PI. You seem to basically believe that the views on race of the soviet union represented some sort of cultural perfection in how we ought to view race. You treat essentially any deviation from that, particular any deviation that makes you feel uncomfortable, as a deviation from a correct view.

However there are a couple of issues with your approach, much less your premises.

There is no such thing as a culturally perfect view and almost certainly never will be. There is no outside unbiased referee that can tell us when we have correctly dealt with racial issues. We all have to realize that when we take positions on what the correct racial relations should be that we are doing so from within the cultural and racial structures of our society and upbringing. We can strive to understand how that effects how we see things but we can never completely escape it. The imaginary ideal of a person who somehow transcends the limitations of humanity to overcome all racial biases is simply unachievable.

This doesn't of course mean that we cant or shouldn't try to deal with the issue and work things out, we just have to be self aware enough to know that declaring a correct relationship and sticking to it above all else is just silly.

Another issue I have is that so many of your positions seem to be built from a fundamental issue that most people face. Which is the feeling that you are expected to feel guilt for systemic and historical relations. This is super common, but I think not how you should take ideas like systematic racism and historical racism. While we should all evaluate what we do without thinking because of unconcious biases and expectations we've developed that doesn't mean that you should feel deeply guilty for this unless you entirely reject responsibility for trying to improve.

A lot of what I read from you seems to be a sort of wonderland version of what most people want to talk about when discussing race that you get from following the types of people with invested ideological interest in opposing social change and who take some crazy guy off the street or take someone out of context and then throw up overhyped clickbait videos and articles that create a false view of what they meant or what most people want.

For instance this

"You cannot talk, white man, because your ancestors enslaved my people"


I have worked in some quite liberal groups and know a good number of BLM people and have never heard any of them express this sort of sentiment. The only time I've even seen something close is when some right wing person gets confrontational because the person they were talking to didn't want to discuss racial issues with someone. You are of course not entitled to other peoples time, but many are actually quite willing to discuss racial issues openly, and be dissagreed with on general points (though people usually don't like it when you try to explain their personal experiences to them i.e. "they probably meant they didn't see you as black in a nice way" or something like that.)

Nobody I have ever known no matter how far left on the issue has ever told me or anyone I cannot discuss the issue and cannot have an opinion just because I'm white or what my ancestors did.

Now this line.

"Oh dear, another white male complaining about how oppressed he is! (sarcasm)"


I have heard this before, and it is generally in moments of frustration, but always preceded by one side in the discussion drawing a false equivalence between police shootings and affirmative action. You are more than free to discuss affirmative action, and some will even agree that it's not the greatest thing in the world and believe it just ends up being tokenism, but trying to attack their position on police violence by complaining about afirmative action or how you feel that some people are mean to you sometimes is not only infuriating but also not an argument.

It is an American problem. Sadly this American mental disease has infected the rest of the world. Americans, because of their hyper-racialised history view everything in terms of racial hierachy.


This is a very odd thing to think. Hyper-racialised politics are incredibly common in a great many more societies than in the US and preceded the existence of the US by centuries.

This means that whites are always imagined as historical oppressors and always the essential ruling class, in any country.


Systemic racism is about pretty well established facts like how when studying two identical resumes which are completely the same except one has a white name and one has a black name the one with a black name will recieve 50% fewer callbacks for an interview.

The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase.


http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

This makes it harder for blacks to get a job, and makes them poorer. This is a systematic problem, based around race, which hurts black people. What would that be if not systematic racism? No one argues that the employers are conciously choosing to do this, it just happens because of sub-conscious perceptions we have of black people that we cannot fix without confronting them.

Whites aren't imagined as a deliberately oppressive ruling class, we are understood as we are. the product of historical forces and social upbringings that hurt black people not because white people want to or try to but because we blithely or angrily ignore the problems and resist any social change.

Obviously anyone with any sort of intelligence and grounding in the realities of the world will know that a person's ethnicity and religion do not determine their character or value.


This simply isn't true and I don't know why you would think this unless you were a libertarian. We are products of our cultures and society not atomized individuals that wake up one day and conciously decide what all our beliefs and biases are going to be.

However the American system did not traditionally recognise this fact and denied the humanity of it's black citizens.


It's only until extraordinarily recently in human history that the idea that all humans were equally valuable or inherently equal in any way was an idea that wouldn't get you laughed at. It's actually an astonishingly liberal cultural value for you to believe so ardently.

As a result of this historical oppression the notion of a perennial white ruling class and a black labouring class has been psychologically embedded into the American popular consciousness.


Just to reiterate this sort of racial history is by no means a purely american phenomenon. And it isn't popular consciousness that it's embedded in, it's our social structures and subtle biases of our cultures.

Therefore all historic narratives are framed in the context of this particular history. The struggles of white Americans are not recognised as legitimate because of the deep sense of this historic racial-class divisions which exists in your country.


You need to accept that our pasts shape our present and we must consciously work to root out those biases. It's not "narrative" when it's a measurable effect in society.

Also, to go back to how the people in BLM I have know have responded to the argument about poor white people suffering. They certainly agree that it's true, a poor white person is worse off than a rich black person. Their point however is that a poor black person is worse off than a poor white person just by virtue of their race and how it effects them. There is this weird idea that there can be no systemic racism because not every single white person is richer than every single black person and that is just silly and shows a sort of lack of understanding of what systematic racism means.

Europe will only be free when the global south is free and when Europeans recognise the total anthropological equality of mankind.


This is extraordinarily middle class. You can bandy about any vague ideal and nod your head to it with everyone else. However it wont change anything to simply say this. On the one hand you think accepting this very fine ideal will fix everything but then turn around and rage against anyone doing any actual change to society to actually fix anything. You act like the ideal is enough to make change and it isn't. When I can go study the incarceration rates of whites and blacks for marajuana use and find that blacks are more likely to go to prison even though both races use it at the same rate, yelling "BUT I HAVE A NICE IDEAL ABOUT EQUALITY SO DON'T YOU DARE TRY AND ACTUALLY CHANGE THE SYSTEM!" then you are using that ideal as a weapon to defeat any practical implementation of it.

'Always together'

Or we choose to be cucks.
this is the most far right post anyone could ever write.However, most people will not understand it and write it off as leftist drivel.


It is neither far-right or leftest drivel. Your entire post could be written by any centrist liberal in the united state or Europe. You are a text book example of a cultural liberal in many ways.

A thoughtful person will understand it, though.


It would be sad to see you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not being a thoughtful person.
#14836444
mikema63 wrote:I'm going to sum up my opinion of your position PI. You seem to basically believe that the views on race of the soviet union represented some sort of cultural perfection in how we ought to view race. You treat essentially any deviation from that, particular any deviation that makes you feel uncomfortable, as a deviation from a correct view.


I believe that they understood very well how to build a unified and cohesive society, free from ethnic division. They managed to do this until their political class lost its way and allowed ethnic nationalism to develop in the Soviet republics and the Russian republic itself.

mikema63 wrote:There is no such thing as a culturally perfect view and almost certainly never will be. There is no outside unbiased referee that can tell us when we have correctly dealt with racial issues. We all have to realize that when we take positions on what the correct racial relations should be that we are doing so from within the cultural and racial structures of our society and upbringing. We can strive to understand how that effects how we see things but we can never completely escape it. The imaginary ideal of a person who somehow transcends the limitations of humanity to overcome all racial biases is simply unachievable.


Yes, I agree that there is no culturally perfect view and none of us can escape racial bias.

But would you deny that this applies to anyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity?

mikema63 wrote:Another issue I have is that so many of your positions seem to be built from a fundamental issue that most people face. Which is the feeling that you are expected to feel guilt for systemic and historical relations. This is super common, but I think not how you should take ideas like systematic racism and historical racism. While we should all evaluate what we do without thinking because of unconcious biases and expectations we've developed that doesn't mean that you should feel deeply guilty for this unless you entirely reject responsibility for trying to improve.


Except that guilt always accompanis any discourse on race. There is an implication that I must feel some sort of responsibility and must attone for something. But the guilt is forever. No act of contrition seems to erase it.

mikema63 wrote:A lot of what I read from you seems to be a sort of wonderland version of what most people want to talk about when discussing race that you get from following the types of people with invested ideological interest in opposing social change and who take some crazy guy off the street or take someone out of context and then throw up overhyped clickbait videos and articles that create a false view of what they meant or what most people want.


And what do you exactly mean by social change?

mikema63 wrote:I have worked in some quite liberal groups and know a good number of BLM people and have never heard any of them express this sort of sentiment. The only time I've even seen something close is when some right wing person gets confrontational because the person they were talking to didn't want to discuss racial issues with someone. You are of course not entitled to other peoples time, but many are actually quite willing to discuss racial issues openly, and be dissagreed with on general points (though people usually don't like it when you try to explain their personal experiences to them i.e. "they probably meant they didn't see you as black in a nice way" or something like that.)


But surely you cannot deny that there are a lot of people in this world who hate whites. And it is not hyperbolic or extreme to mention this, but a recognition of fact.

mikema63 wrote:Nobody I have ever known no matter how far left on the issue has ever told me or anyone I cannot discuss the issue and cannot have an opinion just because I'm white or what my ancestors did.


Except these groups like to portray whites as a privileged overclass and never acknowledge the existential reality.

mikema63 wrote:I have heard this before, and it is generally in moments of frustration, but always preceded by one side in the discussion drawing a false equivalence between police shootings and affirmative action. You are more than free to discuss affirmative action, and some will even agree that it's not the greatest thing in the world and believe it just ends up being tokenism, but trying to attack their position on police violence by complaining about afirmative action or how you feel that some people are mean to you sometimes is not only infuriating but also not an argument.


The difference between me and these types of people is that I do not deny that the American police are racist and mistreat blacks. But these types of people will not acknowledge that whites can experience racism. They will not reciprocate any acknowledgement of their situation. If they do not recognise the possibility that whites can face discrimination or ever be at a disadvantage then they are denying an objective reality.

mikema63 wrote:This is a very odd thing to think. Hyper-racialised politics are incredibly common in a great many more societies than in the US and preceded the existence of the US by centuries.


Which country, now or in history is more racialised than America?

mikema63 wrote:Systemic racism is about pretty well established facts like how when studying two identical resumes which are completely the same except one has a white name and one has a black name the one with a black name will recieve 50% fewer callbacks for an interview.


I don't deny the existence of systemic racism. The diference between me and leftists is that they do not recognise that this exists in other countries in situations where non-whites discriminate against other non-whites. And they also do not acknowledge that whites can ever be discriminated against given the right conditions.

It is obvious that black Americans are discriminated against but what about discrimination against Uyghurs in China or the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia?

The problem is that white Western discrimination is viewed as something exclusive to white Western societies. And I do not deny that the discrimination has been historically more virulent, hence why I call America a hyper-racial society. But I do not deny that when an ethnic majority is in a position of demographic strength it is in a position to discriminate against minorities, regardless of if the majority is white or non-white. Therefore it is not a case of 'white privilege' but 'majority privilege'. But leftists want to say that this type of discrimination only happpens in white Western societies and no where else.

mikema63 wrote:This makes it harder for blacks to get a job, and makes them poorer. This is a systematic problem, based around race, which hurts black people. What would that be if not systematic racism? No one argues that the employers are conciously choosing to do this, it just happens because of sub-conscious perceptions we have of black people that we cannot fix without confronting them.


Where did I deny this is a reality? But will you acknowledge that non-whites and non-Westerners also discriminate when they are in a position of power?

mikema63 wrote:Whites aren't imagined as a deliberately oppressive ruling class, we are understood as we are. the product of historical forces and social upbringings that hurt black people not because white people want to or try to but because we blithely or angrily ignore the problems and resist any social change.


Except we are imagined this way. I have no problem acknowledging what you said, but what I do have difficulty accepting is that racism is something only we can be guilty of. And obviously I am not speaking about within a Western context but when we compare the US to China, for example.

mikema63 wrote:This simply isn't true and I don't know why you would think this unless you were a libertarian. We are products of our cultures and society not atomized individuals that wake up one day and conciously decide what all our beliefs and biases are going to be.


So you think that some ethnicities are more moral than others or that some are more inclined to immoral behaviour than others? I never denied the importance of the factors you mentioned. It was a criticism of the far right and their myopic hostility to anyone who isn't white.

mikema63 wrote:It's only until extraordinarily recently in human history that the idea that all humans were equally valuable or inherently equal in any way was an idea that wouldn't get you laughed at. It's actually an astonishingly liberal cultural value for you to believe so ardently.


It is not liberal. Even the most illiberal societies would have been appalled at the way blacks were treated. Interestingly enough it was the liberal maritime societies which were far more aggressive and had the slave trade whereas the insular continental empires were known to be far more tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities.

mikema63 wrote:Just to reiterate this sort of racial history is by no means a purely american phenomenon. And it isn't popular consciousness that it's embedded in, it's our social structures and subtle biases of our cultures.


So then you agree that other societies, including non-white ones can be racist and in many cases are racist? But maybe American racism is the most extreme?

mikema63 wrote:You need to accept that our pasts shape our present and we must consciously work to root out those biases. It's not "narrative" when it's a measurable effect in society.


It is a measurable effect but what I reject are narratives which paint whites solely as oppressors and the historic struggles of the white working class are downplayed or not even acknowledged at all.

mikema63 wrote:Their point however is that a poor black person is worse off than a poor white person just by virtue of their race and how it effects them.


Yes, this is true. All I am saying is that this can happen in other national contexts as well, not only in Western English speaking societies.

mikema63 wrote:There is this weird idea that there can be no systemic racism because not every single white person is richer than every single black person and that is just silly and shows a sort of lack of understanding of what systematic racism means.


I have no problem acknowledging systemic racism and never denied it existed. What I have a problem with is the idea of 'white privilege' because it seems to suggest that whites are privileged all over the world, including in non-Western societies. It also seems to suggest that their privilege is based on their whiteness as opposed to their hegemonic position within Western societies, including their demographic majority.

mikema63 wrote:This is extraordinarily middle class. You can bandy about any vague ideal and nod your head to it with everyone else. However it wont change anything to simply say this. On the one hand you think accepting this very fine ideal will fix everything but then turn around and rage against anyone doing any actual change to society to actually fix anything. You act like the ideal is enough to make change and it isn't. When I can go study the incarceration rates of whites and blacks for marajuana use and find that blacks are more likely to go to prison even though both races use it at the same rate, yelling "BUT I HAVE A NICE IDEAL ABOUT EQUALITY SO DON'T YOU DARE TRY AND ACTUALLY CHANGE THE SYSTEM!" then you are using that ideal as a weapon to defeat any practical implementation of it.


It is nothing you could not hear from Soviet propaganda and surely you do not think that was middle class?

What I meant by that slogan was that instead of resisting the liberation struggles of many oppressed peoples it would be in Europe and America's interest to support them or allow them to get on with it.

mikema63 wrote:It is neither far-right or leftest drivel. Your entire post could be written by any centrist liberal in the united state or Europe. You are a text book example of a cultural liberal in many ways.


How so? I post a Soviet propaganda poster saying 'always together' and this is cultural liberalism?

If I was a cultural liberal I would believe that we need to export democracy to the whole world and that the Anglo-American order must be global.

mikema63 wrote:It would be sad to see you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not being a thoughtful person.


I am only accusing the far right and Alt-Right of not understanding the ideology they profess to believe in. I am probably more right wing than the majority of them but they call me a cuck because I reject racism and Islamophobia. In fact they are cultural liberals and they base their world view on Anglocentrism and WASP supremacist ideas. They have combined WASP racism with a strange misunderstanding of continental European fascism.

We were going in a similar direction with the dies[…]

Trump Takes on NFL

Trump is absolutely hysterical. Now we'll have a […]

The worse atrocity? Comparing the two. Japanese […]

But you're leaving out some of the right wingers i[…]