Author Topic: Rightists getting leftism wrong  (Read 691 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7787
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« on: November 03, 2021, 01:53:02 pm »

The host of this video is an idiot! He basically says at one point: "[Cuomo] doesn't get it, both sides think they're morally right.". Well, if both sides think they are right, logically both are either wrong, or one side is right and the other side is wrong. If we apply the golden rule to this equation: "do unto others as you would want done upon you", then it should not be difficult to understand that the side that exhibits racism is morally and ethically wrong. Would racists want to be treated the same way by a state that victims of racism get treated simply because of the color of their skin, something no one has any control over when they are born into this world? Of course not. The real reason racists believe they are right is because they are "white". Lastly, racism IS INITIATED VIOLENCE!!! It is the duty of the morally and ethically superior anti-racists to retaliate against initiated violence!

By the simple standard set by the Golden Rule it should not be hard to see that 'anti-racism' is the morally correct position.

The host of this video clip just doesn't get it, because he IS morally and ethically inferior to Chris Cuomo!


One of the most stupid anti-BLM arguments I have been seeing over and over again these last two weeks (yet whose stupidity does not appear self-evident to many people) involves rightists pointing out that numerically more "black" victims are killed by "black" criminals than by police. As if this irrelevant statistic somehow singlehandedly invalidates BLM.

This reveals a fundamental incapability by rightists to grasp what BLM means. BLM means that murderers of "black" victims should not be allowed to go unpunished (while the same murderers would be punished if they had killed "white" victims).

Western police forces have no tendency to let off "black" criminals who kill "black" victims. So everything is fine here. The problem is that Western police forces have a persistent tendency to let off (mostly "white") police officers who kill "black" victims. This is what BLM was founded to end.

And, once again, the fact that I even need to explain something so utterly obvious is not an encouraging sign.....


Not this **** again...:

How many **** times do I need to explain it to you? To be “pro-White” is to be anti-“non-white”. To be pro-black is to simply be pro-black.


Newcomers are unlikely to understand what you are saying. Why is it not anti-"non-black" to be pro-"black"? Please clarify for their benefit.

In any case, it is not good to be pro-"black". Being anti-"white" (which includes being anti-Jewish, by the way) is much better. Only the latter attitude is structurally absent of self-interest.


Let me clarify: since “blackness” was a category invented by “whites”, to be “pro-black” is simply to identify with an oppressed group, which never would have existed in the first place if it weren’t for the oppressors (I.e. “whites”).


“blackness” was a category invented by “whites”
"which never would have existed in the first place if it weren’t for the oppressors (I.e. “whites”)."


to be “pro-black” is simply to identify with an oppressed group

Not necessarily true. It is theoretically possible for "pro-black" to carry tribalist connotations. This is why I advise not endorsing this term.

(It is worth pointing out that BLM is provably not "pro-black". If they were, they would not be toppling Columbus statues, since Columbus never harmed "blacks":

Columbus organized his troops' efforts, forming a squadron of several hundred heavily armed men and more than twenty attack dogs. Dogs were used to hunt down natives who attempted to flee.[159] Columbus's men tore across the land, killing thousands of sick and unarmed natives. Soldiers would use their captives for sword practice, attempting to decapitate them or cut them in half with a single blow.[166]

The Arawaks attempted to fight back against Columbus's men but lacked their armor, guns, swords, and horses. When taken prisoner, they were hanged or burned to death. Desperation led to mass suicides and infanticide among the natives. In just two years under Columbus's governorship, over 125,000 of the 250,000–300,000 natives in Haiti were dead,[61] many died from lethal forced labor in the mines, in which a third of workers died every six months.[167] Within three decades, the surviving Arawak population numbered only in the hundreds.[167] "Virtually every member of the gentle race ... had been wiped out."[159] Disease, warfare and harsh enslavement contributed to the depopulation.[168][169][170]

BLM toppling Columbus statues shows BLM cares about "non-black" "non-whites". The BLM alliance with BDS reflects the same attitude.)


Okay, but would you agree that the term “pro-Palestine” also carries such connotations?


Not at present, but if Palestinians hypothetically were to become identitarian, then it could. In fact, the two-state solution is a Zionist tactic to tempt pro-Palestine people with identitarianism, in the form: "If you recognize Israel, you at least get to keep a (smaller) Palestine. If you refuse to recognize Israel, you could end up with no Palestine at all."

Which is why I always promote anti-Israel sentiment as opposed to pro-Palestine sentiment.


would you say that those who identify as “pro-Brown”, “pro-Black”, etc. are westernized? After all, they are classifying themselves using the same categories as heir Eurocentric colonizers did.


Yes, though probably unintentionally.