Author Topic: Rightists getting leftism wrong  (Read 643 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Rightists getting leftism wrong
« on: November 03, 2021, 01:44:12 pm »
OLD CONTENT

Feel free to add examples as you come across them!

Observe how our enemies are trying to portray veganism as nothing more than attention-seeking:

gatesofvienna.net/2019/10/the-new-sorrows-of-young-snowflakes/

Quote
Biology wasn’t the only dangerous class for us. One of the most important studies was geography. Before that, we led a dull existence, and ate what tasted good. Then, in geography, we saw a film about the meat industry and my little snowflakes realized that even the gelatin in gummy bears did not grow on trees, but came from sweet little piggies. At a stroke, all of them were vegetarians. And it is not enough to just be a vegetarian, you have to live it. To the shock of how cute cutlets were when alive came a second, more important one — that almost no one was a vegetarian at the time.

The situation was brilliant for my classmates. They were special again with their new insight and could set themselves off from the masses, see themselves as better, more enlightened. What I find comforting is that, of those where prepared to go under the axe with every dead piglet, hardly any of them today will give up her schnitzel. Not eating meat has become quite normal, and nobody wants to be that conformist. The little bit of attention is not enough reward for the sacrifice. So, either go right to being vegan, or forget food altogether, and declare yourself a non-binary, pansexual, rainbow person.

Two can play at psychoanalysis. I suspect that rightists' real reason for wanting to prevent veganism from becoming mainstream is because once consumption of animal products is established as unethical, the world will start looking at which civilization introduced industrial-scale meat/egg/dairy factories as well as which countries consume the most animal products per capita to this day, whereupon Western civilization will look far worse than it even already does! In other words, they would rather the world be kept ethically blind to violence against animals (which would then continue indefinitely into the future) for the sake of not having to face up to the fact that it was Western civilization which is responsible for most of the same violence in the past.

(The same concern - not wanting to make Western civilization look bad - also explains rightists reflexively refusing to believe in global warming.)

---

vdare.com/posts/why-the-increasing-frequency-of-scare-quotes-around-white-people

Quote
Why the Increasing Frequency of Scare Quotes Around "White" People?

Because I bothered to start the trend off many years ago, and other leftists joined as they saw its meaning.

Quote
From the New York Times opinion section:

How Italians Became ‘White’
By Brent Staples
Mr. Staples is a member of the editorial board.
OCT. 12, 2019
...
I first noticed this trend with Ta-Nehisi Coates’ hilarious bestseller in 2015, where blacks are “black bodies” and whites are “people who think that they are white.”

In other words, I guess, TNC wants to imply that blacks are authentically black, but whites all have a touch of the tar brush.

You guess wrongly. TNC is implying that it was "whites" who invented both the "black" and the "white" identities to serve "white" interests. "Blacks" are "black bodies" because they had "black" identity imposed upon them without their own consent, indeed without even being consulted about it beforehand. "Whites" are "people who think that they are white" because all it takes to discontinue this mess is for individuals who are taught that they are "white" to refuse to see themselves as such (whereupon they will simultaneously also cease to see people classified "black" as such).

Quote
This just seems childish and moronic, but it appears a lot of people are getting into this kind of thinking now. After all, race is just a social construct, so we get to say whatever we feel, so we just spew random insults at whites, such as implying that they suck because they are part black. Which, logically, is self-defeating, but TNC didn’t get his Genius Grant for being logical, now did he?

No, you suck because you willingly think you are "white", a colonial-era concept. Your pre-Renaissance ancestors (who by definition share your ancestry) were somehow able to live their lives fine without thinking of themselves as "white", therefore they do not suck (even though they share your ancestry), unlike you who do suck because of your colonialist attitude.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#Modern_racial_hierarchies

Quote
The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade[11] and the enslavement of indigenous peoples in the Spanish Empire.[12]

As I have said before, anyone who calls themselves "white" (without quotation marks) is basically saying: "I wish the colonial era never ended."

(You also suck because you obliviously call yourself "white" (without quotation marks) while not being remotely white in complexion. This is you (Steve Sailer):



The colour of your shirt collar is white. The colour of your skin is more similar to the colour of your necktie.)

JAM once wrote extensively on the same topic (quote from email):

Quote
"White" is a club. Sometimes you're in and sometimes you're out. The Irish weren't members of the "White Club" for a long time. They were just pale-skinned niggers. The racial slur "Mick" means "a pale-skinned **** from Ireland who doesn't know how to act civilized." Irish were actually called "green niggers" by members of the White Club. The Italians were nothing but a bunch of niggers too. That's what the racial slur "wop" means; it means "a pale-skinned **** with a spaghetti dick." Slowly but surely the Irish, Italians and other pale-skinned niggers got their "White Club Membership Card" and since it's privileges come from the Jew—and since they don't want to let go of all those privileges—they won't ever destroy Jewish Supremacy. Whites might lose their house **** status if they did that. Perhaps Blacks, Chinese, East Indians or some other "non-whites" would eventually become the dominant superpower in the world, and "whites" can't allow that to happen. It's better for "whites" to let the Jews help them oppress other peoples, so long as the whites aren't being as oppressed as the non-whites.
...
To be "white" in the first place requires a suspension of objective reality; you have to willingly deceive yourself to accept the membership card for the "White Club." You have to look in the mirror and see a complexion that is nowhere near "white" and say, "I'm white," and it is at that point that you're ready to believe anything else no matter how absurd. No human being is colored white, nor even comes close to the color white.
...
Understand this: a "white" person (which has no objective existence) would rather be called "white" than called by the name of his genetic origin, if the latter excludes his right to show his "White Club Membership Card." In other words, a "white" would rather give up being Italian or Irish or German, so long as he can still be white. Don't believe me?

What do you think a lot of these "whites" were doing before they got official "White Club" membership status?

"I'm not Irish, I'm white." "I'm not Italian, I'm white."

Polish? Everybody knows Polish people are dumb as a sack of bricks, right?

"Polish? Hell no, I'm white!"

Of course, some Polish elders don't consider themselves "white" to this day, and will take offense at being called "white," as they consider whites to be nothing but savages, but most of the Polish youths are card carrying members of the "White Club."
...
How many Germans do you see standing up to tell people that the Holocaust is a lie? Germans would rather just be quietly "white." Any German that doesn't proudly defend the truth of what happened during World War II is a card carrying member of the "White Club," and today, most Germans are "white." Despite what thick-headed White Nationalists would have people believe, the "Whites" were the enemies of Nazi Germany, thus any German that gets in bed with the "whites" is joining a club of Jews and Anglos (Hitler's enemies). These facts are outlined in the book Warwolves of the Iron Cross: The Union Jackal by Veronica Clark, which shows that the Germans really despised the British (head house **** of the Jew) perhaps more than the Jew itself. How sad that Germans today want to be "white" instead of Germans.
...
They want to be part of the winning team, rather than the team that lost. . .and might lose again.

A "white" is always a winner, even when he is a loser. But sometimes a German is a winner and sometimes a German is a loser—but he is always a German. Most would rather be "white." It's safe and it's easy, and it even rolls off the tongue better because it's only one syllable.
...
You have to say: Regardless of whether I win or lose, or people think I'm right or wrong, I don't want any of the benefits you're offering.

---

More Sailer idiocy; in arguing against Ball, he becomes an instant example of the exact logical deficiency among ethnic stereotypers that Ball (italicized) is trying to point out (my bold):

vdare.com/posts/philip-ball-in-the-guardian-i-read-angela-saini-s-superior-and-the-scales-fell-from-my-eyes

Quote
But genetics has found no such innate origins of behavioural differences between “races” – and it is highly unlikely, given what we know about genetic variation, that it would.

Uh, no …

For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

The Chinese adult is lactose-intolerant because he had Chinese parents who were lactose-intolerant. Even if he were adopted and raised in milk-drinking obsessed Denmark, he would still be lactose-intolerant because of who his parents were and the genes they gave him.

No, the Chinese adult is lactose-intolerant because he had parents who were lactose-intolerant.

A Danish adult with lactose-intolerant parents would also be lactose-intolerant, and despite being raised in milk-drinking-obsessed Denmark would similarly remain lactose-intolerant because of the genes his parents gave him.

In other words, ethnicity is irrelevant, just as Ball asserted. And Sailer's is a specimen brain that finds it so hard to process that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese, just as Ball asserted.

---

Our enemies show they cannot even distinguish between racism and anti-racism:

vdare.com/articles/this-day-in-vdare-com-history-why-do-only-whites-lose-jobs-over-racial-remarks

Quote
A question I've never seen discussed is why only whites seem to suffer the consequences of inappropriate racial remarks. If whites had a monopoly on racist speech, perhaps it would be understandable. But well-known blacks routinely make racist remarks about whites and others. None, to my knowledge, have been fired or faced anything more than mild criticism.

Consider the following:

Ice Cube was a black "gangsta rapper" in the late 1990s who routinely advocated racist violence against non-blacks. One of his albums, titled "Death Certificate," contained this rap about Asian store owners:

"So don't follow me up and down your market
Or your little chop suey ass will be a target
So pay your respects to the black fist
Or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp."

Today, Ice Cube is an actor who makes millions playing the fun-loving father with a heart of gold in family movies like Are We There Yet and the sequel, Are We Done Yet.

Yes, because the lyrics are not racist speech, but anti-racist speech. Let me translate:

Quote
"So don't follow me up and down your market

Ice Cube is telling the store owner not to ethnically profile "black" customers. In other words, it is a condmenation of the store owner's racist behaviour.

Quote
Or your little chop suey ass will be a target

Who invented the "chop suey" stereotype? Answer: "whites"*. Ice Cube is reminding the store owner that "whites" stereotype "Asians" just like the store owner is stereotyping "blacks", so knowing how it feels to be on the receiving end of ethnic sterotyping, the store owner has no excuse for dishing it out. Ice Cube is basically citing the Golden Rule.

(* More specifically, Jews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwiqmv6Xeo

Quote
Flower Drum Song was the eighth musical by the team of Rodgers and Hammerstein.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rodgers

Quote
Born into a prosperous German Jewish family in Arverne, Queens, New York City, Rodgers was the son of Mamie (Levy) and Dr. William Abrahams Rodgers, a prominent physician who had changed the family name from Rogazinsky.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Hammerstein_II

Quote
Oscar Greeley Clendenning Hammerstein II was born in New York City, the son of Alice Hammerstein (née Nimmo) and theatrical manager William Hammerstein.[2] His grandfather was the German theatre impresario Oscar Hammerstein I. His father was from a Jewish family, and his mother was the daughter of Scottish and English parents.[3]

)

Quote
So pay your respects to the black fist

This refers to the Black Power salute, which is an anti-racist salute:

Ice Cube is reminding the store owner that anti-racist activism fights on behalf of all victims of racism regardless of ethnicity, and hence deserves respect from all victims of racism.

Quote
Or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp."

But if the store owner dishonourably persists in ethnic stereotyping, retaliation will come. This is anti-racism.

The above actually needs to be explained to rightists??

And then it gets worse:

Quote
One important difference when noting the double standard in treatment of blacks and whites over racial remarks is the context of the offending statements. Most of the "racist" remarks by whites are jokes, or statements said in a light-hearted manner. The statements of Trent Lott, Don Imus, Kelly Tilghman, Fuzzy Zoeller and other whites all fall into this category. Not so with most of the blacks. When they make racial remarks it is often racial slurs (Bernard Hopkins, Dick Gregory, Willie Brown) or expressions of intense hatred towards whites (Ice Cube, bell hooks, Jonathan Farley).

So "whites" using "blacks" as amusement is OK, but "blacks" getting angry at being treated as amusement is not OK? Bullying is OK but getting angry at bullying is not OK? This is what is meant by: "It's OK to be white."

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2021, 01:53:02 pm »
OLD CONTENT contd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q9TRIkOiX8

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”)."

True.

Quote
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":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Criticism_and_defense_in_modern_scholarship

Quote
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.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2021, 02:39:45 pm »
Latest:

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2021/11/a-message-to-my-american-brothers/

Quote
We must demoralize our opponents by understanding them better than they understand themselves.

I look forward to watching you try.

Quote
There still is white supremacy, but it lives in the subconscious of the Left. That’s why it fights us so hysterically. We must force Leftists to understand themselves

Leftists obviously do not think non-whites are their equal. No one would try so hard to help an equal.

Firstly, we do not believe in equality. No two individuals are equal.

Secondly, what rightists have trouble understanding (because they are barbarians) is that "weaker" does not mean "inferior". We (who are not barbarians) do not believe "non-whites" are inferior to "whites" in the qualities which we value. We do, on the other hand, recognize the obvious truth that "non-whites" lack power compared to "whites", which is why "whites" were able to colonize "non-white" countries. (If anything, we consider the greater emphasis of Western civilization on increasing power (e.g. via machines) compared to other civilizations to be evidence of its qualitative inferiority.)

It is perfectly possible to want to help those who lack power without considering them inferior to those who possess power (indeed who created the civilization most concerned with increasing power) and who use that power to oppress those who lack power.

Similarly, I do not consider non-humans inferior to humans, but I do recognize that they are weaker. In this case the power gap is even greater, and thus non-humans are in even greater need of help, because there is already no chance that they can ever defeat their oppressors by themselves:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/

While between "whites" and "non-whites" it hasn't gotten quite this bad yet, it could easily become worse:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
« Last Edit: November 03, 2021, 02:44:01 pm by 90sRetroFan »

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2021, 10:48:06 pm »
Quote
I look forward to watching you try.

Indeed!  :D

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2021, 07:43:45 pm »
David Brooks Looks At 'Terrifying Future' Of U.S. Right At Conservative Conference
Quote
Writer David Brooks discusses his latest piece 'The Terrifying Future of the American Right,' which details the trends he observed at the National Conservatism Conference in Florida.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo5vaXUNlSU

The True Left DOES want to destroy you, but NOT because we "hate America" but because we LOVE America and believe rightists are UN-AMERICAN COUP ATTEMPTING WESTERNERS in line with the same western colonialists who originally colonized America! If rightists actually behaved as Americans, instead of Westerners, we would have no issue with rightists other than their love for Judeo-Christianity, Israel, and Russia, whom we merely see as more examples of Western colonialism!

One thing is for certain, both false-leftists and rightists are destroying America presently for WESTERN INTERESTS!!! Duhhhhh!!!! OMFG!?!? Can you people be any fucken dumber than you already are, is it even possible?

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2022, 09:44:49 pm »
https://vdare.com/posts/will-the-fat-become-the-next-identity-politics-sacred-cow

Quote
It’s not that the fat rank terribly high on the pyramid of intersectionality…yet. But you can imagine that they might someday, and thus you can foresee yourself having your career canceled in, say, 2029 over some fat jokes you told in 2022.

No, the fat have a higher carbon footprint.

So do the muscular, though. Therefore muscular fat-shamers will be considered hypocrites. Only low-BMI people will be considered qualified to fat-shame.

True Leftism is low-BMI supremacism, and ultimately heritable low-BMI supremacism:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-metabolism/msg7980/#msg7980

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2022, 02:10:29 pm »
This is a good one! I'd go a step further though, gender is not primarily a capitalist phenomenon but a Western one! This reminded me of an Oliver Malloy quote I posted previously:
Quote
We live in this bubble of ignorance. Most people know nothing about history, or the historical context of the traditions they still follow today. People do things without knowing why they're doing them. — Oliver Markus Malloy

The average Westerner, especially rightists, obviously have absolutely zero understanding of how programmed they actually are. Most of their "thoughts" are not their own.

Let's talk about a question about gender....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ53lVyi4so

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2022, 02:43:17 pm »
Well, there goes the rightist argument that immigration increases murder and **** rates in a state:

Study: States With High Murder Rates More Likely To Be Republican
Quote
Republicans love to blame crime on Democrats and liberal policies. Last week during the confirmation hearing, multiple senators questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson views branding her as "soft on crime". However, a new report shows among the 10 states with the highest murder rates in 2020 ... eight of them voted for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVIQ_Tt0zcc

Turns out the mental and spiritual illness of rightists actually increases murder rates, who would have thunk it!?  :D

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2022, 10:15:27 pm »
https://occidentaldissent.com/2022/04/01/tablet-mag-the-new-authoritarians/

Quote
Liberalism 3.0 is at odds with Liberalism 1.0. It is focused on controlling speech and thought. It knows exactly what is good … things like antiracism, racial equity, intelligence agencies, vaccines, veganism, Ukraine or “trans” rights.

At least credit to them for calling the True Left "Liberalism 3.0" as opposed to the False Left which they call "Liberalism 1.0".

Yes, as moral absolutists, we know exactly what is good.

No, most vaccines went through violent testing on animals, therefore are non-vegan. On this account alone, it is impossible for us as vegans to consider vaccines to be good. But even if hypothetically vaccines were vegan, they are still not good, as the approach of dealing with pandemics via vaccines is characteristically Western:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg4617/#msg4617

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg7753/#msg7753

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg8604/#msg8604

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg10403/#msg10403

And no, Ukraine is racist, therefore it is impossible for us as anti-racists to consider Ukraine to be good:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11570/#msg11570

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11608/#msg11608

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11630/#msg11630

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11637/#msg11637

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11656/#msg11656

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11682/#msg11682

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11723/#msg11723

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11749/#msg11749

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11795/#msg11795

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12061/#msg12061

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12116/#msg12116

Back to enemy article:

Quote
In this respect, Liberalism 3.0 departs from Liberalism 1.0 which was suspicious of state power and Liberalism 2.0 which was suspicious of corporate power. Liberalism 3.0 celebrates authority and grasps for power like a man dying of thirst in a desert. It chafes under restraints. It us intolerant and loves a good witch hunt. It constantly appeals to the authorities to … DO SOMETHING.

Yes, we are intolerant. No, we do not love a good witch hunt. We would prefer no witches existed in the first place. But since witches do exist, ending their existence ASAP is our duty. Yes, we will appeal to the authorities to do something, but if the authorities turn out to be more tolerant of the witches than we are, it becomes our duty to replace them also.

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2022, 04:01:16 pm »
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555 etc. [Evacuation of non-"whites" from Ukraine - Dazhbog]

The relevant question when deciding whether a particular policy is racist is whether it benefits the in-group, in this case "whites". Therefore, the policies in question must have been aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" in one way or another.

You could argue that the underlying intention was to get the "white" refugees to safety as regards the dangers posed by the Russian invasion at the expense of the non-"white" refugees, however, being safe from the dangers posed by the Russian invasion specifically is in the long run not actually decisive in and of itself when it comes to demographics.

As we have seen, upon evacuating Ukraine, a lot of the non-"white" refugees actually repatriated to their (already majority non-"white") countries of origin (group 1), meaning that for the time being, they aren't contributing to the de-whitening of majority "white" countries. Sure, you could argue that at least they are still alive and might thus be able to once more migrate to a majority "white" country. This however exposes them to increasingly racist migration policies, so it's anyone's guess whether they ever make it to a majority "white" country again. Add to that the fact that even in relatively stable and prosperous states, they are still disproportionally endangered by the effects of climate change, which tend to hit majority non-"white" countries more severly than majority "white" ones, so it's actually anyone's guess whether they even survive long enough to migrate at all! In other words, evacuating this group of non-"white" refugees has effectively neutralized them from a demographic point of view.

Another number went for other EU-countries (group 2). They might end up considerably safer than group 1 as far as war and climate change are concerned, however, their perspective of staying there in the long term is anyone's guess, so there is still a decent likelihood they will end up like group 1 anyway. Add to that that they might still be subject to racial profiling, racist violence and detention, particularly in racist Poland, which they have to cross to go anywhere within the EU. Add to that that gun laws in the EU are rather restrictive, meaning they likely won't have the chance to even defend themselves (and diminish the "white" demographic in the process). All in all, their perspective of negatively impacting "white" demographics upon evacuating Ukraine still isn't particularly good.

Last but not least, a number of non-"white" refugees were citizens of majority "white" countries and Ukraine (group 3). They likely don't face the threat of deportation that group 2 faces, however, all the other problems remain. Their chances of negatively impacting "white" demographics are better than those of the other two groups but still not exactly great.

Had they simply stayed in Ukraine, they would of course have been exposed to the full force of the Russian invasion with a considerable risk of dying. On the other hand, they would have had a rather easy time obtaining weapons and training, enabling them to kill "whites", which already would have enabled them to directly diminish "white" demographics. Add to that that the Ukrainian evacuation policy disproportionally favors "white" females, meaning that the remaining "white" population, which would be dying at a similar rate as the non-"white" population, has a harder time replacing their losses through reproduction, whereas no such gender-based favoritism is evident regarding the non-"white" refugees, meaning they have an easier time replacing their losses through reproduction, which in turn means their population will grow at a faster rate than the "white" population, meaning that at least Ukraine can be successfully de-whitened to some extent.

You could argue then that Ukraine being de-whitened is by far not as important as de-whitening safer, more prosperous and nuclear-armed countries such as France or Britain. Alright, but as the Turkish example demonstrates, having a non-white country immediately adjacent to the EU as a transit point for migrants and refugees already has a huge value in and of itself. Besides, not evacuating immediately, taking up weapons, getting training and combat experience and storming the border by force of arms in the aftermath (ideally killing more "whites" in the process) is still a more promising path towards that end than evacuating immediately.

(It should be noted however that while this eliminates the risks for refugee groups 2 and 3 on their passage to some other country, it won't necessarily prevent group 1 from voluntarily repatriating and becoming demographically useless in the process, so depending on which refugee group is the largest, precautions should be taken to at least discourage them from doing so.)

As should be evident by now, if anything, Ukraine shouldn't be criticized for making it more difficult for non-"whites" to evacuate, but for not outright banning them from evacuating. However, the latter would have made for even worse PR and diplomatic scandals than the path ultimately chosen and would have almost certainly cost Ukraine a huge chunk of the support they desperately need. Ultimately, discouraging Ukrainian non-"whites" from leaving in a subtle manner by making evacuation as difficult and dangerous for them as possible was the sensible way to go, even if it didn't work out in the end.

Regardless of the lackluster result, the policies in question weren't aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" and consequently weren't racist.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901 [Racism in Soviet Ukraine - Dazhbog]

The same Soviet officials who enforced racist policies and condoned the lynch mob mentioned in the article quoted also mercilessly **** down on any display of Ukrainianness around the same time. Today, Ukrainianness is in many regards openly celebrated and Soviet sympathies **** down upon, meaning a dramatic shift in attitudes took place, which also implies certain demographic changes. In other words, post-Soviet Ukrainians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Ukrainians.

The demographics of the city of Kherson in particular (where the massacre in question took place) changed as well (the share of the Russian and the Jewish population declined, whereas the share of the Ukrainian population increased). In other words, the bloodlines responsible for the massacre aren't necessarily as present today as they were back in 1964. Again, post-Soviet Khersonians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Khersonians.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936 [Ukrainian politician Vadym Prystaiko stereotypes non-"whites" as "foreigners" that "stick out in a crowd" and wants to "put them in some other place" - Dazhbog]

Prystaiko is ethnically stereotyping for sure, "putting them in some other place" however is at least open to the interpretation that he would endorse banning non-"whites" from evacuating, which, as argued above, might very well de-whiten Ukraine, making them no longer "foreigners" by his own definition. So there is no reason to assume that he is trying to enforce whiteness, subhuman phenotype notwithstanding.

Let me know in case I forgot the odd point from your list.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2022, 07:25:32 pm by Dazhbog »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2022, 08:53:22 pm »
"The relevant question when deciding whether a particular policy is racist is whether it benefits the in-group, in this case "whites". Therefore, the policies in question must have been aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" in one way or another.
You could argue that the underlying intention was to get the "white" refugees to safety as regards the dangers posed by the Russian invasion at the expense of the non-"white" refugees, however, being safe from the dangers posed by the Russian invasion specifically is in the long run not actually decisive in and of itself when it comes to demographics."

A policy does not have to benefit the in-group "in the long run" in order to be racist, or else it would be impossible for incompetent strategists to be racists, which is obviously not the case. For a policy to be racist, it suffices that the policy is intended to benefit members of the in-group in the immediacy at the expense of members of the out-group in the same immediacy, irrespective of what happens later. In the case of refugee evacuations from Ukraine, refugees were sorted into "white" and "non-white" categories and treated differently based on such categories, with those in the "white" category receiving consistently better treatment. In the immediacy, the interests of "white" refugees to reach safety ASAP were considered more important than those of "non-white" refugees to do the same.

"not evacuating immediately, taking up weapons, getting training and combat experience and storming the border by force of arms in the aftermath (ideally killing more "whites" in the process) is still a more promising path towards that end than evacuating immediately."

Refugees are individuals. Some of them may think like you just described; others may not. Those who do not still do not deserve to be treated worse on account of being "non-white". You make it sound like we are only against injustice when its victims are those who are strategic assets to us. No, we are against injustice even when its victims are strategically useless. Why do we care about factory chickens/fish/etc.?

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg72/#msg72

Because we expect them to join the war on our side if we free them? No! We care because they do not deserve to be treated worse on account of being "non-human"! That is all there is to it.

You are not really arguing that Ukrainian prioritization of "white" refugees is not racist; you are arguing that Ukrainian racism should be excused because it might help us strategically. It should not. Otherwise, next you will be arguing that the chicken /fish/etc. factory owners should be excused because their meat/eggs after being eaten might increase the chances of our non-vegan enemies getting cancer sooner and thus dying sooner.

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2022, 06:49:33 am »
Original reply deleted. I have to overthink my stance once more.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2022, 11:10:09 am by Dazhbog »

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2022, 04:30:21 am »
(I have decided to write a new post instead of simply modifying my previous one, so that the thread will show up as 'unread' in your feed and you will notice my reply.)

You are not really arguing that Ukrainian prioritization of "white" refugees is not racist; you are arguing that Ukrainian racism should be excused because it might help us strategically. It should not. Otherwise, next you will be arguing that the chicken /fish/etc. factory owners should be excused because their meat/eggs after being eaten might increase the chances of our non-vegan enemies getting cancer sooner and thus dying sooner.

In effect, what you're getting at is that once we start tolerating evil, speculating that it will benefit us in the long run, we will eventually lose our will to fight evil at all, potentially allowing for infinite evil to be committed, correct? To that extent I agree with you and stand corrected accordingly.

That being said, as for the topic itself, I'm still not buying the racism (as in pro-"white)-angle. There are heaps of non-"whites" in Ukraine besides the ethnic groups that have reported discrimination, which, as far as I know, have not reported discrimination (Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Georgians, Azeris, Armenians, Uzbeks, Koreans etc.). Surely, at least some of them will have fled as well, using the same routes and border checkpoints the non-"whites" that have reported discrimination were using.

Until I see evidence that these non-"whites" were similarly discriminated against, I will treat it as a case of ethnic stereotyping against some non-"whites", but not against other non-"whites", thus not a consistently pro-"white" policy.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2022, 04:36:23 am by Dazhbog »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2022, 09:31:51 pm »
"There are heaps of non-"whites" in Ukraine besides the ethnic groups that have reported discrimination, which, as far as I know, have not reported discrimination (Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Georgians, Azeris, Armenians, Uzbeks, Koreans etc.)."

I will assume this to be true.

"I will treat it as a case of ethnic stereotyping against some non-"whites", but not against other non-"whites", thus not a consistently pro-"white" policy."

Some "non-whites" are negatively affected by this ethnic stereotyping. Other "non-whites" are not negatively affected by this ethnic sterotyping.

However, no "whites" are negatively affected by this ethnic stereotyping.

Therefore:

Total number of "non-whites" negatively affected >0
Total number of "whites" negatively affected =0

How then is such ethnic stereotyping not a consistently pro-"white" bias? (I have never claimed it was a 'policy'. It could be just racists being themselves.)

In order for me to possibly accept your claim that there is no pro-"white" bias, you would have to present at least some cases where "whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "non-whites", which would then potentially balance out the numerous cases already documented where "non-whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "whites".

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2022, 03:55:44 am »
In order for me to possibly accept your claim that there is no pro-"white" bias, you would have to present at least some cases where "whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "non-whites", which would then potentially balance out the numerous cases already documented where "non-whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "whites".

Well, I can at least produce this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-refugee-discrimination.html

Quote
Ahmed Habboubi, a 22-year-old French-Tunisian medical student, said all foreign nationals, including Africans, Israelis, Canadians and Americans, were told to go to one gate at the Medyka crossing from Ukraine to Poland, which would only process four people every couple of hours, while Ukrainians were allowed to pass freely through another gate.

To be fair, many Israelis, Canadians and Americans are non-"white". However, Habboubi doesn't specify that only the non-"white" ones were selected for the "foreign" queue, so we will have to assume that his description includes "white" Israelis, Canadians and Americans. Couple that with the lack of evidence regarding the discrimination of the non-"white" groups I mentioned above, which without evidence to the contrary implies that most of them must have been accepted into the "Ukrainian" queue. In other words, it is at least conceivable that the "foreign" queue may have contained "whites" and the "Ukrainian" queue may have contained non-"whites".

This admittedly doesn't by default imply that these "whites" were excluded to accommodate non-"whites" in a scenario where there is only one place left in the "Ukrainian" queue and the individual doing the selection is forced to choose between non-"white" individual A and "white" individual B. As far as this is what you're looking for, I have to concede defeat for now.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2022, 11:53:07 am by Dazhbog »