The thing is, I don’t think what the racial nationalists want is racism as a terminal value. I think for most of them, there are other things that they want, and they see having an [ethnicity]-only country as the only practical or effective way to achieve these things.
This is why I believe most of them can eventually leave racial nationalism, if we work towards making the conditions right, which requires a bunch of stuff we should be doing anyway even if there were no racial nationalists.
What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics.
Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized
electoral politics.
Yes, my fear is that Lee Kuan Yew is right.
I actually wonder if the Alt-Right changed their message to focus more on exit rather than revolution, how the public attitude towards them would change. Like, if their fundamental thesis was something along the lines of this:
“In order to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, we would like to have our own Amish/Indian sort of deal where we can peacefully withdraw from a society we find repulsive.”
Obviously by and large it would still be offensive to hardcore lefties and true believer progs, but how would it impact the moderates, the average joe? What about the free speech/gamergater/cultural libertarian crowd? Certainly it wouldn’t make them more willing to adopt the alt-right’s white nationalism, but would the idea of giving these people an exit from modernity be seen as more reasonable than them wanting to take over the US and make it a white ethno-state?
What you have to understand is that everyone in politics is incompetent and ideology-huffed. In part, because if you aren’t, it’s hard to derive enough motive power.
So, while “White People Reservation” is an order of magnitude more achievable, and two or three orders of magnitude less damaging than “make the US into a white ethno-state,” they aren’t going to take it up as their rallying cry.
connard-cynique asked:
So again, taking this as serious for a moment…
Ethnic separatism isn’t a gentle “no thanks,” it’s the formation of a new, sovereign nation-state based on principles of ethnonationalism and ethnic exclusion.
Exclusion backed by the iron hand of a state, and its implicit threat of violence.
But this isn’t extermination, and it doesn’t require the will for extermination - which isn’t going to exist at the national level barring some pretty shocking unforeseen circumstances.
So assuming you actually believed this, it would be foolish to pick extermination over separatism.
connard-cynique asked:
I understand this ask is satirical, with the goal of mimicking hard-right ideology. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what the point even is, since for Libfas, it was probably an attempt to bait him into saying something that would “reveal” his “inner Nazi” or something along those lines.
But not everyone with concerns about immigration truly has a secret inner Nazi with an opinion like your satirical one. Leftists are just not that great at understanding right-wing motivations, statistically, from what I’ve read.
But let’s assume we take it seriously for one moment. Just, you know, hypothetically.
Is there any way in which extermination is preferable to separatism?
Because not only does extermination require political will, it requires somewhere between one to three orders of magnitude more political will than separatism, control over the state apparatus, and conditions that, in the West, would only exist in a time of lawless violence and disorder on levels of Weimar Germany (which we aren’t at - note the insufficient challenge to the state’s military power).
And then, once extermination is attempted, because for such a nation to exist (at our technology level) for whites, it must exist in areas that are currently majority white, the full force of the political will of the liberal countries will crash against it, likely resulting in a much larger and better-armed invasion.
Separatism, however, won’t necessarily generate an invasion, and may have trouble rousing even a sufficiently crushing response in economic sanctions.
It would muster almost no response in sanctions if your ethnic separatist population was any color other than white. However, supposing you really did believe this, that becomes a method to corrode your opposition’s political will - just repeatedly pointing out their hypocrisy on this matter.
So even if one were an extremely racist hardcore reactionary, it just doesn’t make much sense to choose extermination instead.
That doesn’t exclude people from holding such ideas, or even acting on them - after all, destroying the Twin Towers was never going to make America quit meddling in the Middle East.
connard-cynique asked:
Alright, again setting aside that this is trolly bullshit,
All states use the implicit threat of violence.
All states. Also all Anarchists, so as to prevent the formation of new states.
That includes liberal states! It includes Democracies!
Anyhow.
If you decide to actually massacre millions in the name of “white protection,” the Liberals get to kill you.
What you’ve just said implies a great confusion about the availability and power of political will.
Extermination takes more political power than separatism. If you have enough power to attempt extermination, then you have enough power to do separatism without it getting watered down. If you have half the power required to enact extermination, you have enough power to do separatism without it getting watered down.
And if the idea that some people might change their minds and later invite others back in applies to separatism, then it also applies to extermination, assuming you don’t literally control all habitable areas of the world in order to attempt extermination completely.
It’s also about political power required per unit area, per political operative, number of political operatives, et cetera.
Making a white city-state requires the coordinated action of the population of a city-state. So let’s call it somewhere between 1-7 million. They all have to move into, and control, only a city-state’s worth of geographic area. Most of them don’t have to be Party Militia members, so your real hardcore force would only need 50,000-500,000. to attempt this.
The entire process can be legitimized through the use of democratic means and ideology of national self-determination. The desired area can attempt to secede through a vote, severely undermining the ability of democratic nations to respond.
On the other hand, a plot for extermination requires seizing control of the whole country, and maintaining that control. For a country like Britain, with a population of 65 million, it’s going to need support from at least, let’s say, 25% of the population. So around 15 million. And that probably isn’t anywhere near enough unless you also have near-total control of the army.
One of these might actually be possible in the 21st century without the context of an invasion by a foreign power, the global collapse of oil reserves, the government of the United States of America declaring bankruptcy, and so on. I’ll give you a hint - it’s not the one involving the mass murder of people who have, individually, not committed any crimes worse than a parking infraction.
And that’s disregarding the effect that CRISPR and similar technologies are going to have on race.
But of course, this assumes White Nationalists who are not too delusional and who are capable of pulling off something reasonably well-organized with a realistic and achievable goal. The kind of people that could somehow make White Singapore.
Which don’t really exist in numbers right now.
I’m hoping that Leftists will be restrained enough to prevent them from coming into existence.
Besides, you’re forgetting a key part of why the Left has been able to advance, socially. A price paid in blood is a price paid in your nation’s will to survive.
“Kent, a former neo-Nazi, credits an African-American parole officer named Tiffany Whittier with helping him to see beyond skin color and changing his views about white supremacy.
“If it wasn’t for her I would have seeped back into it,” said Kent. “I look at her as family.”
Whittier, 45, even inspired Kent, 38, to take down the Nazi flags he had hanging in his living room and replace them with smiley faces.
Added Kent, “When you wake up and see a smiley face, you’re going to go to work and you’re going to smile.”
Kent now works full-time on a chicken farm in Colorado, where all his co-workers are Hispanic.
“Before all this, I wouldn’t work for anybody or with anybody that wasn’t white,” said Kent. “[Now] we have company parties, or they have quinceañeras, I’m the only white guy there!”
Redemption Ink, a national non-profit that offers free removals of hate-related tattoos, helped connect Kent with Fallen Heroes Tattoo in Colorado to begin the 15-hour process of covering his swastikas. The sterile environment is new to Kent who had his previous ink work done in prison.
“I’ve never, never, never been inside of a tattoo shop getting a professional tattoo,” he said.
Kent believes the painful process will help him move forward after spending years as a member of a violent skinhead group based in Arizona. As a father of two young children, Kent also hopes his children will see the world differently.
“I don’t want my kids to live the life I lived and live with hate,” said Kent. “I want my kids to know me for who I am now—a good father, a hard worker, and a good provider.””
@ the punch a Nazi crowd
Huh… almost like just being there for someone and talking to them can change their minds
Oh now that’s just crazy talk.
I bet if she just punched him that would have worked sooner
Noice
awesome for him, that he got deradicalized.
but the people above me are goddamn idiots. one doesn’t kill (replacing punch with this since it’s good to clarify goals) a nazi for the nazis sake. it’s for their victims sake.
hell, revoking naziism may not even save this man’s life. if he ever did any harm in the name of supremacy, then his death would be righteous.
but all of this has no impact on the fact that it’s great that this guy is no longer a nazi.
even if he gets the death he may very well deserve, at least he didn’t hurt any more people, and at least he got to live not as a nazi for however long
This lady broke him of his shittiness for the victim’s sake too. This guy not only won’t hurt anyone for the sake of his beliefs, but he is actively doing good, and seemingly doing greater good by the community in which he found himself. Or are you thinking that going to prison and reforming isn’t enough of a punishment for crimes committed?
I wouldn’t even take this attitude with a fucking communist, and they’d happily murder both you and I given the chance if history is any indicator. People changing objectively for the better is always something worth celebrating.
i have no idea whether imprisonment was punishment enough, because the article does not specify what he was imprisoned for, how long, where, or what sort of things he may have done in prison as an active nazi.
prison didn’t reform him. the article was quite clear on that. his connection to outside humanity reformed him.
i’m not concerned with “greater good”, which is a bs term anyways. i’m concerned with what’s just, and the fact that there might very well be justice in this man’s death before reformation is an indicator that it absolutely wouldn’t be wrong to “punch” him then.
> thinks “greater good” is a BS term
> doesn’t think “justice” is a BS term
Look, I get that “greater good” has been used to justify atrocities… but what exactly do you think is used to justify inter-generational ethnic revenge killings, the kind that spiral out of control and start ethnic civil wars?
“Justice.”
You’re so eager to punch or kill, even though “any harm” could mean as little as graffiti.
Liberals may not understand how Liberalism works, but it does have mechanisms through which it does work. You have to think about the mechanics of the incentives.
When you let people marry their cousins, and those people are from extremely patriarchal families from extremely patriarchal cultures, those families can use the cousin marriage as means through which to control and isolate women and reinforce patriarchal cultural transmission, even when a cousin marriage between two others would not impose this effect.
There are mechanics to the incentives. For the liberalism to work, people can’t be so deeply controlled by their families. They have to open to atomization and cultural transmission.
When you want to kill someone regardless of the actual level of threat they pose or have posed, it undermines the incentives to quit.
For the Liberalism to work, “exit” has to be a viable strategy.
You might say “but it undermines the incentives to join!”, but the “lol punchanazi” crowd don’t understand the incentives to join and are ideologically prohibited from understanding or addressing them, so that doesn’t float.
Do you care about healing society? Or, like the man who launched van attacks on Muslims in the UK in response to multiple van attacks by Muslims in the same, even though they weren’t the same individuals, are you out for revenge?
And don’t give me “NAZIS ARE ON THE VERGE OF TAKING OVER AMERICAN SOCIETY!” thing. They aren’t, and those who think they are, are high on their own propaganda supply. Charlottesville required busing them from across the whole country.
Anyhow, if people thought that the “lol punchanazi” crowd would stop at actual, literal Nazis, they probably would just let it go, silently. But almost everyone knows they won’t.
So now we all have to be concerned about the safety of Nazis, because the “lol punachanazis” are terrible at things like “check that the man you’re punching is actually a Nazi first.” (”But why would a non-Nazi be afraid of being mistaken for a Nazi?” - because wearing a hat that said “Make Bitcoin Great Again” was enough to get maced.) Charlottesville may have resulted in a kill for them, but there was a masked man hitting people with a bike lock in Berkeley. It’s only through chance that “Antifa” (in the public perception) didn’t get “first blood.”
As such, each incident is going to drive justification for right-wing behavior.
“But what about the bad things right-wingers do?” - why the fuck do you think they’ve been losing the culture war (not fiscal policy) so badly? Would the nation be less right-wing if the Vietnam War hadn’t eroded confidence in national wars? There’s a sharp divide in Millennial support for Democrats based on age, which just so happens to coincide with the Bush Administration. They may have lost an entire generation over that dumbass Iraq war. Yes, the Iraqis got it worse, but bad right-wing actions have been part of the reason for society’s shift leftward, socially, for centuries, now.
connard-cynique asked:
libfas answered:
Exterminating millions of people might spike the crime rate a little. You know, murder being kind of a crime and all …
Look, Connard, honey, darling, pal,
There are things between “arrest man and send him to prison for putting bacon on a mosque door, where he dies, while ignoring child-grooming gangs” and “exterminate everyone that isn’t white.”
Things like “make a sex-trafficking RICO act” or even “actually enforce the law against sex offenders and don’t overlook their actions and give them only short sentences because of their ethnicity.”
I think, perhaps, this says a bit more about the failure of your imagination - including your imagination of libfas’s motivations - than libfas.
“make a sex-trafficking RICO act”
Is it not already? Holy fuck this is such a common-sense bipartisan idea that I am not at all surprised this is not a thing already. After all, how can you score victories in the political theater if your opponents will completely agree that this is an obviously good idea?
One of the more interesting things that @Slartibartfastibast had been beating down is exactly this.
Rotherham is a small industrial city of about a quarter million people, of whom ~7,000 are Pakistani. The last count I had heard was 2,000 child sex slaves from this one small city, which, loosely eyeballing a UK population pyramid, gives me 1 in ~10-12 girls who were sex-trafficked. Throw on modifiers like “working-class” and it’s probably somewhat higher. (Albeit, you know, I’d love better numbers on this).
Oh, and the last time I had looked this up, the wiki page for Rotherham had lost the “See Also“ section because it was getting too embarrassing thanks to all the OTHER nationwide child sex trafficking scandals.
So they finally charged one of the gangs and sent them to prison. And it only took a year and half a million pounds to do so.
And so Slart’s interesting point here was that
To expand or elaborate, it’s important to understand that hard right ethnonationalist movements do not arise spontaneously. The conditions for them to do so must first exist in order to expand beyond the fringe levels of background racism radiation.
One key way to avoid giving them the opportunity to expand is to be actually virtuous. Not “progressive virtue,” the counter-part of right-wing Christianity’s failures, but,
Rotherham graduated from just being “Neo-Nazi propaganda” to something a lot more. This could have been prevented, by preventing, or prosecuting for, a bunch of sex crimes.
Ostensibly, we don’t like sex crimes and want them prohibited no matter which ethnicity engages in them.
So by doing what should normally have been done, a right-wing talking point and recruiting tool could have been denied.
Yes, the hard fringe would have remained, but marginal recruitment would be down.
rocketverliden asked:
Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on. Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on. U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.
They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.
The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy. (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)
History is big. There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize. There are many people, with many stories. With this, we could step sideways.
(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay. After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)
However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity. I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.
It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either. It doesn’t like the United States of America.
It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding. But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.
Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company.
Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.
fascinating
Wow this is a breath of fresh air
This guy has managed to combine “we need to think ASAP about the kind of precedent we’re setting with decisions like this” and “but for the moment, let’s fuck over Nazis,” two sentiments that are seem like no-brainers but which you somehow don’t expect anyone with Newsworthy Opinions to be able to hold in their mind simultaneously without exploding
“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.”
That actually seems like a reasonable boundary there. Claiming endorsement is not quite the same thing as just being hosted.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
