|
WampaLord posted:How did the alt right thread become a discussion on marriage and children? Why do you think?
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Modern society for many people is one defined by the disintegration of the family, social isolation, and the importation of millions of foreigners to avoid demographic (profit) collapse. The alt right is more than anything a reaction to this trend and why Trump has been as successful as he has- he's (pretends to be) anti immigrant and anti globalism, things that coincide with the collapse and eradication with the previous identity of the nation. Trump knows that these people are desperate for salvation so lying or spraying and praying with rhetoric is fine, the alternative is to accept the destruction of the old America. The alt right is not fundamentally different from any other historical reactionary movement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
A huge amount of the armchair psychologist garbage from this thread could apply in equal measure leftists "radicals"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Saying that the alt-right is made up of angry young white men - angry because they have no prospects - is not just making fun of them because they can't get laid. Do you think the left has a particularly good handle on understanding modern society? Do they have it figured out?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Where's this subculture of angry virgin communists and why haven't I heard about them, they sound cool. Literally any leftist forum or twitter group I've seen has had the same markers of social maladjustment and alienation that some people seem to think is what's engendering the nu right.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:So what is the solution? Globalization is not and should not be stopped, unless you're some sort of backward nationalist who thinks that being born in the right country makes you more worthy of employment than someone who wasn't that lucky. The real answer is a combination of a social welfare state, a raising of the standard of living for overseas workers so that capital isn't the only one reaping the rewards of globalization, and a lower birth rate to start growing populations down. Before you say I sound like Mc Do Well, the final point is something that we've already really done in the Developed World via female empowerment and birth control. There's zero need to exterminate people when the obvious truth is when given the medical and social freedom to choose, women in general choose to have way less children compared to when men are allowed to make the decisions for them. All of Europe is below replacement, and the US would also be joining them if not for immigration. Well that pretty clearly lays out the reasons why Whites should be opposed to immigration and globalization.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:A pathetic white supremacist who's posting history is fully of talking how the "elites" are letting immigrants in and "undermining white communities" appears and supports your position. If that isn't enough to tell you that you are the wrong side of history, I don't know what is. Who is it that determines economic and immigration policies if not the elites? Globalism (capitalism) has created greater economic equality but it has also established, enriched, and empowered the native capitalist and bourgeoisie classes to establish a concrete and entrenched capitalist system in all corners of the world. The end result of this is the empowerment and reification of the capitalist system on a global scale in a way that didn't exist in the post colonial/cold war era. This line of thought is not really leftist or socialist, it's a form of capitalist racial equality, and beyond that in this case, it's specifically anti-white. The goal above all others is the destruction of white identity as it exists now through an alliance (in the ideological sense) with global Capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This is the dumbest thing itt, since your last post. So calling for continued immigration and globalization for the explicit purpose of replacing whites isn't anti white?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:White identity is nothing good, and if it's rubbed out that's great. I like living in a White nation with Whites and I like White culture, and thus it's good to me. Cheers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Wow what did you guys do to bring out the racists? Are you asking why a thread about racist right wing movement has racists posting in it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What do you mean "replacing" whites? Immigrants aren't body snatchers. Google the concept "demographics". Thank me later.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
on the left posted:I thought the immigration was more about creating a poor mestizo underclass to perform degrading labor at low costs for elite whites. A lot of it is. But as you can see that's not why some people are supporting it ideologically.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Here's what I want to know: What in your life led you to these beliefs? Well uh if you eliminate those things from an ideological belief I'm not sure there's much for me to tell you?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:What is "white culture"? Name it's defining traits, name a country that has all of those traits on display. What are it's traditions? It's interpersonal customs? It's family dynamics? It's foodways and cuisine? List the places these traits are universal. White culture doesn't exist. You have a bunch of national and ethnic cultures of people with light skin, but there is no unifying white culture, even giving allowances for some shared heritage from the Greeks, Romans and European Church. In the US "White" culture was the dominate culture for most of 20th century since Whites constituted somewhere between 80-90% of the population, feel free to read up on that era of history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:So, by 'replace' you mean 'also be there with.' I mean demographic change over time in a given geographic area as a function of birth rate and population movements.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Only a small portion of people on earth get to sit on the top with a good quality of life and human rights, so every non-white enjoying those things means one less spot for a white. Also white people only enjoy most of those things from brutally exploiting and oppressing others and stealing their wealth and labour, so eventually some other group is going to come and oppress and exploit "whites" because that's just how it works. Ultimately a lot of white people are terrified of being treated like they've treated others, currently or historically. The capitalist system that exists today has resulted in a lot material development in the third world (especially Asia) such that a much larger percentage of people are capable of having a "good quality" life. The relationship between nations is significantly different from the colonial or cold war era.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:
It's different because many magnitudes fewer people are being killed, there's material development and improvement locally, and generally natives are more involved in running their own government. Exploitation and democratic veneer aren't significantly different in structure from what occurs in the West so the original argument about Whites rooted in colonialism doesn't really make sense anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Immigration and globalization occurs because it's profitable, not because it's 'anti-white'. rudatron posted:There's nothing special about whites, or non-whites, or any stupid partitions of humanity. You will lose your racial identity because your racial identity is an illusion, and all illusions are shattered when they contact reality. American, Communist, Fascist, or any identity one chooses is as much of an illusion. Materially and practically racial identity can be used to organize society and had real world implications.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:What you call "white culture" in that period never existed and was a fantasy of television shows such as Leave it to Beaver. In reality, that period was defined by numerous regional cultures based on race, but also on income, but defined by their shared identity as "American" as well as a vibrant mix of immigrant cultures that kept traditions from their homelands (Irish, Italian, Spanish, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, German etc.) and sometimes saw these traditions adopted into the greater regional cultures of the United States. At the same time you had African-American and Native American people practicing aspects of a shared American culture, while also maintaining incredibly distinctive and vibrant traditions of their own. If you're going to say a culture or identity is not real because it's mutable or a patchwork then no real culture exists anywhere. TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So why would you choose the identity "white" why does that particular category have meaning to you? Why is that what you are choosing to be? I'm White and multi cultural American identity doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Communist & fascist are ideologies, not identities, and American is a legal status of citizenship. rudatron posted:But I think you're confused, race isn't an illusion because it's socially constructed, language is social constructed after all, it is an illusion because it is wrong. It presents itself as natural, while being totally unnatural. It makes claims of causative associations between skin color and behavior, all of which are lies. The only reason it is 'real', is because idiots believe it. If we should organize society, we should organize it on truth, not lies. As to your second point that's more wishful thinking than scientific fact, if anything evidence points the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:America is by it's very nature multicultural It wasn't really founded on or run in the manner of modern multiculturalism. TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:What do you have more in common with, say, a rich New Yorker with Italian ancestry (or insert some other location/ancestry very different from yours) than a black person from the same location and socioeconomic group as you? Ytlaya posted:The reason people are pointing this out is that "white" doesn't really have anything specific linked to it culturally. You can point to specific countries or even economic strata that have some degree of shared experience, but that isn't really true for white people. You could make same argument that any culture is more divided by class than it is united by similarity. All these arguments against White identity are predicated on undermining racism rather than reality, they're not logically consistent with how other cultures/identities operate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Not really. Sure, the national governments are run by local populations, but usually an ideological or ethno-religious group holds absolute control over the state apparatus while people who oppose them (both groups and individuals) are repressed and potentially made enemies of the state. I'm willing to believe fewer people are being killed since the end of the cold war, but they have certainly not become less violent, and death tolls can be highly suspect depending on the source (or whether they were recorded to begin with). MizPiz posted:Saying that post-colonial exploitation isn't significantly different from America or the European powers just shows ignorance to the events in third world regions. The modern world doesn't fit neatly into colonial and post colonial leftist analysis, it's substantially different in power relationships between nations and peoples. There's a reason revolutionary movements in the third world are mostly dead and populism is strikingly different in character.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Whenever I hear racists bring up the It's more that everyone EXCEPT sub Saharan Africans (outside of a tiny "backflow" group) has Neanderthal DNA.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:38
|
|
argument I just point out that
|
Baronjutter posted:No you see just like we evolved different skin tones for different climates, we evolved different levels and types of intelligence and physical ability too. Europe had harsh climates and something about the ice age so problem solving rather than laying in the sun relaxing all day, which is why women like jewellry because it's like picking berries. I read it all in the title of a clickbait pop-science article I didn't actually read. There isn't any scientific basis for claiming absolute or even meaningless levels of inequality between ethnic groups. In fact it doesn't make sense in materialist analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ How in the world does a white person in France share more culturally with a white American than a white and black American do? Ytlaya posted:How we define race is not consistent and is also based only on the traits that are directly related to stuff like skin color or facial appearance. Ytlaya posted:It also makes no sense to consider white and hispanic to be two separate races but also consider all African ethnic groups to be "black", given the greater genetic diversity between groups of the latter. Where to draw the line is completely determined by society and has no material basis.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:There are different prevalences of susceptibility to a wide variety of diseases (Cystic Fibrosis, Takayasu arteritis, Tay-Sachs, coccidiomycosis, many others) between ethnicities, and a few other quirks like East Asians often missing an ethanol metabolism enzyme that makes you flush when you drink, but that's about it. You're more closely genetically related to a big fraction of every other ethnicity than you are to mythical genetic mean of your own ethnicity. You're substituting a more distant mean and then claiming genetic ancestry is meaningless for large populations. This interpretation is about politics not science
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Absenting sickle cell anaemia are there even any significant gentic differences between people of different skin colours? Skin colour, eye colour, skull shape, epicanthel folds, chemical production, height, disease susceptibility (both genetic and exogenous sources), probably behavioral tendencies on some level, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:What does genetic similarity have to do with politics? My statement is true. Please stop incorrectly invoking scientific principles to justify your cultural identify. It's an extremely dishonest statistical interpretation to further your absolutist statements in support of a political position. It's quite easy to determine the relatedness of two people from genetics and Europeans are indeed more closely related to each other than other groups in any reasonable model.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:However bringing up genetics in support of the existence of "race" as a social construct is foolish because the genetic concept of "relatedness" has absolutely no bearing on race as a social construct. I think they're quite closely related to be honest. Any social construct is somewhat elastic but there is a clear connection between geographic/genetically grouped populations and racism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So you are rejecting a "multi cultural identity" more than positively affirming anything. Why do you feel a multi cultural identity is harmful? The societies it has produced are alienated, dying, self hating constructs sustained mostly by the mass importation of labour from the third world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I'm going assume by "modern" you mean post-cold war, because you'd be Global poverty rate, mortality rate, disease rates, wars etc have all been on the decline for quite some time now. In fact I'm not sure there's any significant socially negative trend (besides climate change/pollution) that's increasing on a global scale. MizPiz posted:Also, why would someone from the third world think that a westerner faces the same exploitation that they do, especially when they know that they aren't reaping the rewards of their own resources? The point was that leftist/revolutionary rhetoric is often couched in the old mindset of anti colonialism. If it can't produce a realistic analysis of the modern paradigm than it simply discredits itself through exaggeration. Westerners of course still have it better off than the third world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Aren't there even white and black people that are more closely related genetically than some disparate groups of blacks? Basically the opposite of what TheNakedFantastic claims. That's not the opposite of what I'm claiming at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Gaj posted:TheNakedFantastic's ignorance of American cultural migration and integration are hilarious. Its as if he can only reside in a state where America was initially created, and any deviation from that state is corruption of our Whiteness. He starts with the position that America has more connection to Anglo and French culture than it does to black culture which developed domestically. I foresee his next spout of ignorance is to expand his definition of whiteness to all of Europe, all the while ironically dismissing that the conglomeration of Europe as a whole is multiculturalism. Good poo poo for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 18:48
|
|