The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

PopePalpatine

osmiumartist wrote: »

They might. They might not. You've said WASP specifically instead of just "white" to load the question I suppose?

So what if I did load the question? "WASP" refers to a sub-section of white people, just as "Eastern European", "Southern European" or "Hispanic White" does. It just so happens that WASPs were the most powerful ethnic group in the USA.

osmiumartist

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So what if I did load the question? "WASP" refers to a sub-section of white people, just as "Eastern European", "Southern European" or "Hispanic White" does. It just so happens that WASPs were the most powerful ethnic group in the USA.

Have the "alt right" made such a distinction or is this just you?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

But you don't think countries where racism is enshrined in law are more likely to be racist? Really?

I didn't say that. Nor anything remotely like it. But what's your point?

Sand

Amazingfun wrote: »

I can't shake the feeling this will be a fun post to reflect on in years to come, much like the numerous "Trump is a clown, Trump will never win" material is now ;-)

Trump is a clown. As for Trump will never win, well on the one hand I did overestimate the American voter. But in their defence a majority of American voters did vote for Clinton over Trump.

Brian? wrote: »

Utter nonsense. By this logic every violent protestor is a fascist. I don't agree with using violence to further a political agenda, but it's not the sole preserve of fascists.

The anti Trumo protesters were not creating and "other" to blame for their problems. They were protesting Trump doing it. This video is so arse backwards it makes my head hurt. People who protest intolerance are fascists? It's complete and utter nonsense.

Utter rubbish.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I didn't say that. Nor anything remotely like it. But what's your point?

After you. What was your original point about 200 year old "WASP" racism that I responded to?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

After you. What was your original point about 200 year old "WASP" racism that I responded to?

Again, I think you are confused. I haven't posted anything about 200 year old WASP racism. Frankly, it's a little weird trying to have a discussion with you.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Again, I think you are confused. I haven't posted anything about 200 year old WASP racism. Frankly, it's a little weird trying to have a discussion with you.

It sure is when you are now admitting you weren't talking about the same thing as the post I was responding to, whether it was you or not.
Why did you change the topic then?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

It sure is when you are now admitting you weren't talking about the same thing as the post I was responding to, whether it was you or not.
Why did you change the topic then?

How does stating that racism doesn't require laws to exist 'change the subject'?

Sand

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) He isn't a white supremacist; he just believes that "white culture" should be "supreme" in the US.

He denies being a white supremacist. He states that the US was undoubtedly defined as a White/European country and that that is changing, and that white racial identity is a part of US politics. That's true, and ironically it is the left that introduced it with their white privilege nonsense.

2) The US was "defined" by Anglo-Protestants - well, ok - even if you totally ignore (i) indigenous peoples

They didn't define the US, they were wiped out by it.

(ii) the variety of other European countries present in North America and focus on the British colonial period as the "starting point" of the "definition" of the US, the colonists were from a varied religious/ethnic background and brought salves with them from a very early period.

Well, it was. Look at the signers of the US declaration of independence. All the names are British. They are all men. They are all white. Only a single signer was Catholic - of Irish descent but with an anglicised name to better fit in with the WASP elite in the colonies. And that was diversity - his home state Maryland had barred Catholics from voting or from holding public office so its absolutely remarkable he managed as a Catholic to win political office and sign the founding document of the US.

3) White college kids aren't getting jobs because of diversity. Well, that's statistically horse ****.

I think the specific point he made was that in 'many' of large silicon valley corporations white people are under represented versus their share of population. He doesn't offer any evidence, and the interviewer doesn't challenge so its guesswork as to what he means exactly. But its not a remarkable claim: apparently only half of the top 10 silicon valley companies are run by a straight white man. 30% are run by someone born outside the US. That tends to continue into the workforce though not as extreme: Google in 2014 announced their US workforce was 61% white and said “Google is miles from where we want to be".

The problem is White Americans are about 73% of the US population, and if you discount Hispanic White Americans then you're left with 62%. So if anything, Google is roughly where it needs to be. Google is portrayed as one of the negative performers. The article talks about 'astonishing whiteness' which is actually either under-represented marginally or a lot depending on your view of hispanic Whites. This is not a story about white over-representation at any level of the new knowledge economy heavy hitters.

And the key point Spencer makes is not that the current state if going to be sustained. This is not the status quo. He states that the needle is only pointed in one direction and there is a change taking place and there is significant pressure from media, culture, academia and government. That is what he points to white college kids perceiving - and let alone the white kids who cannot get through college. Spencer himself was a dropout so he probably has some first hand experience of being disappointed with the supposed advantages offered by white privilege.

The left has introduced white identity politics and made it respectable again by encouraging white people to recognise themselves as racially white, and to acknowledge their position in society and the economy. People like Spencer are able to take advantage because that position isnt all golf clubs, horse riding and foreign holidays to Paris as the left presumes it is. There has been a rejection of US leftist identity politics, but it could be a lot worse - it could rebound into US rightist identity politics.

The relief is that while Spencer can point to and articulate some valid points, he is overall unable to prevent himself engaging in aggressive comments that might win him upvotes on social media but will repulse most people. Even in that video he increasingly revealed himself for what he is as the video continued.

Count Dooku

Brian? wrote: »

Utter nonsense. By this logic every violent protestor is a fascist. I don't agree with using violence to further a political agenda, but it's not the sole preserve of fascists.

The anti Trumo protesters were not creating and "other" to blame for their problems. They were protesting Trump doing it. This video is so arse backwards it makes my head hurt. People who protest intolerance are fascists? It's complete and utter nonsense.

People, who were protesting, were doing it to express their hate to somebody who disagree with them. Modern day SJW are not much different from the fascists in amount of hate they possess. This is why their cognitive dissonance and ignorance of facts makes them perfect food for alt right trolls

InTheTrees

Count Dooku wrote: »

This is why their cognitive dissonance and ignorance of facts makes them perfect food for alt right trolls

The alt right (buttercups?) are just as whiny and opinionated.

Each side tries to goad the other with adolescent labels.

Count Dooku

InTheTrees wrote: »

The alt right (buttercups?) are just as whiny and opinionated.

Which makes from them perfect balance for SJW. Do you remember "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"?
SJW, without any opposition to them, already created too much mess
Alt right will keep them busy in internet rather than in real life

Brian?

Count Dooku wrote: »

Which makes from them perfect balance for SJW. Do you remember "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"?
SJW, without any opposition to them, already created too much mess
Alt right will keep them busy in internet rather than in real life

What mess did SJWs create?

Widdershins

Brian? wrote: »

What mess did SJWs create?

Lots of division and strife. Victim fetishisation instead of actual progress toward a more accepting society.

Brian?

Widdershins wrote: »

Lots of division and strife. Victim fetishisation instead of actual progress toward a more accepting society.

Really? Can you expand on that?

I see the alt right as an over reaction to an increasingly intolerant society.

Widdershins

Brian? wrote: »

Really? Can you expand on that?

I see the alt right as an over reaction to an increasingly intolerant society.

It's been done to death mainly in threads about feminism.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

Lots of division and strife. Victim fetishisation instead of actual progress toward a more accepting society.

Are you saying we haven't made progress towards a more accepting society ?

Brian?

Widdershins wrote: »

It's been done to death mainly in threads about feminism.

So you can't expand on it?

InTheTrees

Count Dooku wrote: »

Alt right will keep them busy in internet rather than in real life

Oh dear. It really is just for adolescents isnt it?

For instance explainming why the alt right doesn't believe in climate change is completely beyond any of its supporters.

Its just an escape from "real life".

Brian?

Right so. I think I finally understand the existence of the alt right.

They are a reaction to cultural Marxism. A grand conspiracy to undermine traditional white European male culture. A philosophy indoctrinated into university students. SJWs are the vanguard of this cultural Marxism.

Do I have it?

Widdershins

Brian? wrote: »

So you can't expand on it?

I could but it would become a re-run of all of the other very recent discussions.

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

Are you saying we haven't made progress towards a more accepting society ?

If you mean we as in society in general yes, we certainly have. This is not in any discernible way related to the type of modern 'feminism' I take issue with, though. And that type of feminism is likely to delay further progress by bogging society down with divisive and oppressive behaviour.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

I could but it would become a re-run of all of the other very recent discussions.

That is really kind of pointless though , why raise it if you won't explain it ?

At least give form to your viewpoint - even if only bullet points- otherwise it is kind of meaningless.

Professor Moriarty

Widdershins wrote: »

If you mean we as in society in general yes, we certainly have. This is not in any discernible way related to the type of modern 'feminism' I take issue with, though. And that type of feminism is likely to delay further progress by bogging society down with divisive and oppressive behaviour.

There is much merit in what you say but I think it's not confined to feminism. Polarisation mitigates progression towards an equitable society.

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

That is really kind of pointless though , why raise it if you won't explain it ?

At least give form to your viewpoint - even if only bullet points- otherwise it is kind of meaningless.

The original question:

Originally Posted by Brian?
What mess did SJWs create?


I replied: Lots of division and strife. Victim fetishisation instead of actual progress toward a more accepting society.

'SJWs' could encompass a number of people with a number of different causes. I am thinking specifically of self styled feminist campaigners. I wouldn't know where to start with this one, and I'm not in the right mood to get into it again. Sometimes when people campaign for the rights of one group, they do so in a way that alienates people who aren't in that group. Their interests aren't confined to womens issues, so the effect of their style of campaigning is fairly widespread.

Widdershins

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is much merit in what you say but I think it's not confined to feminism. Polarisation mitigates progression towards an equitable society.

Thank you and yes! You've put it much better than I could manage!

frostyjacks

Brian? wrote: »

Right so. I think I finally understand the existence of the alt right.

They are a reaction to cultural Marxism. A grand conspiracy to undermine traditional white European male culture. A philosophy indoctrinated into university students. SJWs are the vanguard of this cultural Marxism.

Do I have it?

This guide should help with your understanding.

http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/

AnGaelach

Brian? wrote: »

Right so. I think I finally understand the existence of the alt right.

They are a reaction to cultural Marxism. A grand conspiracy to undermine traditional white European male culture. A philosophy indoctrinated into university students. SJWs are the vanguard of this cultural Marxism.

Do I have it?

Almost, you forgot to include the Jews.

Brian?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Almost, you forgot to include the Jews.

It was the Jews that started the cultural Marxist conspiracy, apparently. I was parking that until we got some discussion going.

Brian?

Widdershins wrote: »

The original question:

Originally Posted by Brian?
What mess did SJWs create?


I replied: Lots of division and strife. Victim fetishisation instead of actual progress toward a more accepting society.

'SJWs' could encompass a number of people with a number of different causes. I am thinking specifically of self styled feminist campaigners. I wouldn't know where to start with this one, and I'm not in the right mood to get into it again. Sometimes when people campaign for the rights of one group, they do so in a way that alienates people who aren't in that group. Their interests aren't confined to womens issues, so the effect of their style of campaigning is fairly widespread.

Look, if you're not going to give me some specifics how do I respond?