Nazis are the enemy.

Post Reply New Topic

White nationalists have nothing going for them but hate. Once one group is gone - or maybe even before - they'll start discriminating against eye color, hair color, national origin, or whatever. Ultimately they won't be happy till everyone is dead.

Identity politics are crap like that.

I think the only thing I was trying to suggest though, from the interview above, it seems like a lot of these guys are really projecting more of their hate at identity politics itself and essentially saying - if you're going to tell me that I have to publicly value my race and talk about race to have any rights in this world or call myself a racist in protection of my heritage than that's exactly what I'll do. I won't go out of my way to harm any minorities but I'll react violently if anyone tries to impose their race, religion, or culture over top of my own.

There clearly are pig-headed, bigoted, and just plain dumb people among the white nationalists as well but it can be difficult to tell where perceived ethnic self-defense stops and hate out of ignorance or hate for its own sake begins. I'd easily say the same for BLM in this regard.

Ignoring that BLM is multi-ethnic.

Also ignoring that discrimination by skin color is the original form of identity politics.

That's an argument against a claim that white nationalists are a pure flip-side to BLM. Probably best to save that for someone who's actually trying to make that case.

I didn't think you had taken that as a permanent position, but your comment could be read like that, and will be read like that by people who already have that idea.

I think one can compare the tactics of the two organizations without getting into false equivalences, but directly comparing hate groups with social justice groups doesn't make sense. No one starts a social justice group unless an organized campaign of suppression exists. That's an alt-right fantasy.

It could be read that way if people aren't actually reading word per word. I can't hold myself responsible for that sort of word-skipping and mutation because there's no end to the possibilities of what people can inject if their cognitive bias picks every second or third word to focus on.


This is exactly why I'm talking about Chris Cantwell's interview with Karen Straughan. I really don't think most people here have any idea what they're talking about, they're just stoking what feels right or molding a little puppet out of clay of themselves to present the type of personal identity that they think is most favorable to how they think other people think and how they think other people will feel if they label their concepts accordingly. I'm not comfortable with that because there's no pursuit of truth in it, at it's core it's really a sort of freeform-religious behavior, and in my mind it just accelerates bad situations to make them even worse.

I just don't see the sense in "ethnic self-defense" unless an ethnic group is actually being actively discriminated against.

If I were a victim of "affirmative action," I would be pissed, angry, etc. But I wouldn't think that I'm being discriminated against because I'm white---despite the fact that, technically, that is the case. It's more like "giving the other person a chance."

I really think I should post this now because I'm bringing it up more than I feel comfortable with just describing it.

A lot of people probably haven't heard of Karen Straughan. The best way I can explain her resume - she's a classic liberal atheist whose also found herself quite vocal in something like a women's pro-MRA group called the Honey Badgers. She had previous interviews with Chris when he was associated with other issues and before he became a white identitarian.

What I like about her interviewing him - she disagrees with him on the white identitarian stuff but she seems to be familiar enough with who he's been, where he's come from, etc.. to see the arc or trajectory of his identity and she's in a place to call out BS where he's lying, twisting the truth, or just making things up and what you see is a much more cordial conversation than what you should see if this were a simple case of chaos, stupidity, and ignorance.

I think one of the other major shockers - he's a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's work, has read The Righteous Mind, and also is a big fan of Jordan Peterson's work. I'm not at all saying that this makes me a fan of what he's doing or that I'd endorse his white nationalism, I think however that I'd have to say that he's 'racist' in the way that Anton LaVey was a satanist - ie. to say that this is the pre-1960's resurfacing doesn't sit right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCBH1guK96g

My other problem with taking a moral high-horse to the point of mischaracterizing groups and mischaracterizing arguments is that you don't beat them that way. Every lie you tell about a group, every way that one tries to twist them into one thing or another, actually gives them greater dignity.

To that extent I really don't care if fuzzier thinkers would think that I might have some sort of cloaked sympathy for even watching this stuff, especially if they don't even know what they mean by that (and to guess that someone's secretely 'full of hate' is like saying they're a secret satanist - it's unfalsifiable and relies on some organized evil in the realms of deep mystery). Again though - I think pursuit of truth is too important to worry about how someone might mischaracterize me, miscategorize me, or any of that.

Similarly, if someone knows of anyone whose really sharp, factual, and on-point who's highly pro-SJW, pro-AntiFa, please - post videos! One of the problems I see on these boards is so few people care about bringing their best arguments or even building up their opponent's best possible case or argument for the sake of dismantling it.

I don't even think it's that simple. It has a lot less to do with their concerns of being picked over another group perhaps, bigger concerns - whether you'd think it's conspiracy theory or not - of a culture that looks like it wants to subordinate reason, logic, and merit to race, religion, etc.. and has them as the ultimate dhimmi based on race.

I really think people get to places like this when the public sphere breaks down and no one's actually willing to talk about issues. Studying these kinds of things is important in the sense that a doctor can't accurately diagnose a disease or treat it without understanding the pathology of it or where it's coming from.

In some other threads I've mentioned being something of an animist or that I've bought into the notion that consciousness in the world is interconnected. I think that actually informs and further amplifies my faith in the observation that nothing happens in a vacuum - ie. everything comes from somewhere and if you don't understand where it comes from you can't resolve the problem. To do otherwise is a bit like declaring war on winter eves-trough icicles without ever cleaning your drain spouts.

^^^^^Do you find Transcendentalism to be a form of Animism?

I'm going to float a hypothesis out briefly, something I'm starting to wonder about - not necessarily buy into but definitely wonder about.

When I think of 'western culture' in the sense of what's been historically been a largely white culture I count several cultural and moral watersheds: the reformation, the witch trials, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and with the 20th century - WWI, WWII, Fascism, Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism. Westerners, either white or any other people who experienced the full ride of European history, have learned a lot about how not to do things and what kinds of things were specifically bad ideas.

That brings us now to groups whose cultural identity hasn't been a part of that learning curve but were rather subordinated to it and for a long time it was quite accurately perceived that their problems were predominantly the cause of racial, religious, and other forms of oppression. The problem here is that as they advance out of that it's increasingly difficult to tell how much of this is still legitimate ongoing oppression and how much of this is their welcome to what can be considered the world of genuine 'human' problems - ie. problems that know no specific race, creed, or gender.

To that end, there are a lot of people in this count who really, strongly believe that it's all oppression and - to add to their lack of restraint - as an ethnic, religious, etc.. group they have no blood on their hands that in any way significantly embarrasses them, in the way that most whites can be reminded of the Native American genocide, King Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, slavery in the South, etc.. Without these embarassments there's no other way for them to find their point of balance other than by taking their own adventures into atrocity. I want to think that this is a small enough sub-section of any population not to speak for their race, their religion, their gender, or whatever else but their lack of restraint in this regard and their romanticism with respect to what they can do with vigorous action has me deeply concerned.

My deep concern however is not only wholly that, ie. I think we have a global elite who see this coming and rather than by nefarious purposes actually have good cause to think that since the ethnic makeup of the west has changed enough that we'll have to go right back to autocratic rule, for our own good, safety, and discipline of course. I think these people do actually have a hand in escalating the political infighting and, in the case of Charlottesville, if their fingerprints aren't on the police stand-down orders it was a wonderful coincidence in their favor. To be clear these aren't satanic Illuminati witches, these aren't the '13 reptilian bloodlines', nor are these the people who want to genocide the world down to a few billion people necessarily (or at least I haven't really seen the evidence of that last part yet) - they're just a very black-pilled group of people who don't believe there's any hope for keeping the peace or progressing as a society so, the faster that they can expedite proof that we can't handle our freedom the faster they can take it back from us and have Europe, the US, Canada, etc. under their authoritarian/autocratic parental oversight.

The Pizzagate type stuff or to the extent that there are pedo rings in places of high power doesn't even to me denote a sort of organized evil - it's more like this is what nihilism, full-tilt, with people who have enough money to just drink the wine of life without being held to accountability looks like. It's like how Howard Hughes or people like him with millions of dollars can have obsessions to where they take up the whole floor of a building, live in darkness, never shower or trim their nails, and live with a decade worth of bottled urin. To have that same mental illness, or to have an addiction of that variety, and not have that kind of money or power to keep sailing with means it probably gets caught pretty early and remedied because you simply can't get away with it - practical concerns prohibit a full descent into madness for most people.

I really don't know the full/proper definition of Transcendentalism but to the extent that Emerson, Eliphas Levi, etc. were all pooled into that together I get the impression it's a more blanket rather than specific category.

As for whether or not I think animism is transcendental - I almost feel like it's somewhat the opposite, ie. bringing the 'supernatural' (which I think is an egregious synonym for 'stuff we don't understand') down to fundamental components and units where there really isn't a place to mystically escape to - it's all right here and everywhere.

I'll have to study this further---but I can't help but think that both Animism and Transcendentalism have strong strains of Pantheism.

I'd disagree to this extent on the animism = pantheism suggestion. Animism doesn't necessitate a central governing intelligence or mind and there's nothing to stop that from being a pile of disconnected parts that simply share the same natural laws. IMHO, to the extent that things could be like pantheism there might be a collective mind but the reality of it is probably a lot more about stacking systems, ie. suffering on planet earth is like the gauging of one of my skin cells as I type this, ie. my mental connection with any trauma I'm inflicting on my body's micro-flora is vague at best.

I believe both contain the "God-is-in-everything" theorem.'

Obviously, there will be differences---and they will be revealed via further study.