Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Belisarius
.
5mo ago
Scott Alexander has recently argued in favor of Effective Altruism after the new scandal of effective altruists trying to oust Sam Altman from Open A.I.
His argument starts by focusing about how different factions attack EA from different perspectives that are contradictory. That those on the right call them woke and those on the left call them fascists and white supremacist. The point seems to be implying that they are going to be attacked anyway by all sides no matter what, so we shouldn't take seriously such criticisms. Then he mostly focuses on an estimated 200,000 lives saved in the developing world.
My problem with this is that it obscures something that isn't a mystery. Which is that EA's politics align much more with the Democratic establishment than with the right and there isn't any substantial confrontation of what that means.
The biggest donor of Effective Altruism according to my short research and claims I found in the effective altruism forum from 2022 where he participated in such discussion is Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz.
Asana, his company contributed 45 million in the 2020 election and he also had an important contribution in millions in the future forwards pac
https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/contributors?id=N00001669 https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/pro-biden-super-pac-darkmon/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html https://bluetent.us/articles/campaigns-elections/dustin-moskovitz-cari-tuna-democratic-donor-2020/
If one looks at open philanthropy or the EA forum and searches for controversial cultural issues there can be sometimes a small dissent but they follow the liberal party line for the most part.
Lets look at open philanthropy, an EA organization and Dustin Moskovitz organization. Scott certainly wants to give credit to EA and open philanthropy for promoting YIMBY.
However this organization has also funded decriminalization policies and pro migration policies.
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/criminal-justice-reform/ https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/immigration-policy/
I wonder if the well funded caravans of migrants we see in some areas of the world have to some extend to do with funding related to EA.
Recently there has been a mini EA scandal where one individual expressed HBD views in the past but this was made a thing and he was condemned by many in the movement, but not entirely unanimously. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8zLwD862MRGZTzs8k/a-personal-response-to-nick-bostrom-s-apology-for-an-old
Basically, this individual wrote an email 26 years ago that used naughty language to make the point that you should use less offensive language when arguing for race realism.
Then he apologized due to pressure and argued:
What are my actual views? I do think that provocative communication styles have a place—but not like this! I also think that it is deeply unfair that unequal access to education, nutrients, and basic healthcare leads to inequality in social outcomes, including sometimes disparities in skills and cognitive capacity. This is a huge moral travesty that we should not paper over or downplay. Much of my personal charitable giving over the years has gone to fighting exactly this problem: I’ve given many thousands of pounds to organizations including to the SCI Foundation, GiveDirectly, the Black Health Alliance, the Iodine Global Network, BasicNeeds, and the Christian Blind Mission.
Then there is Open A.I. and Chat GPT and effective altruists have been influential in Open A.I. Chat GPT has liberal bias. https://www.foxnews.com/media/chatgpt-faces-mounting-accusations-woke-liberal-bias
Another thing to observe are the demographics of effective altruists.
They are only 0.9% right wing and 2.5% center right. With majority being of the left with 40% center left and 32% identifying as left. But that is identification. Just like Biden could be identified by some as center left while by others, including myself as far left. They are also 46% Vegans. 85.9% are Atheists.
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/eas2019-community-demographics-characteristics
I haven't encountered any group with such small representation of right wingers that actually is fair when promoting a political agenda towards either the right wing, or groups that are more seen related to the right. However, effective altruists are much more concerned about the lack of sufficient racial and ethnic diversity than ideological diversity when you search their forum.
Climate change and veganism are two issues that could well lead to hardcore authoritarian policies and restrictions. Considering the demographics of EA and the fact that Peter Singer is an important figure in it and helped coin the term, I do wonder if on that issue the EA influence would be for them to impose on us policies. When dealing with the moral framing of animal liberation movement activist like Singer we see a moral urgency. Like with all identity movements, to elevate one group such as animals you end up reducing the position of another group, such as humans. Or those who aren't vegans.
The issue is that these networks that are reinforced based on EA might already have as part of their agenda to promote their political agenda.. And these networks that developed in part due to EA and put like minded ideologues together to organize can also expand even more to promote their political agenda outside the EA banner.
It does seem that at least a few of the people involved with effective altruism think that it fell victim to its coastal college demographics. https://www.fromthenew.world/p/what-the-hell-happened-to-effective
My other conclusion related to the open A.I. incident as well is that the idea of these people that they are those who will put humanity first will lead to them ousting others and attempt to grab more power in the future too. When they do so, will they ever abandon it?
Scott Alexander himself argued that putting humanity first is the priority and he had some faith on them thinking rationally when they tried to oust Sam Altman, even though he invited them inside. He might not agree with their action necessarily but he sympathizes with the motive. https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/1726132072031641853#m
That this action is dishonorable matters because like with Sam Bankman Fried it continues the pattern of important ethical issues being pushed aside under the idea that effective altruists know best.
This means that Sam Altman won't be the first. It also means that we got a movement very susceptible to the same problems of authoritarian far left movements in general of extreme self confidence to their own vision and will to power. This inevitably in addition to the whole issue of hell paved with good intentions encourages the power hungry to be part of it as well.
It does seem there is an important side to it which is about people donating in more unobjectionable terms but in general effective altruism it isn't separate from a political agenda that fits with a political tribe. That should be judged on its own merits without the 200,000 saved in developing world being accepted as an adequate answer for policies that affect the developed world. The short version of all this is that if you got a problem with leftist/far leftist NGOs, you should consider the effective altruism movement and some of its key players to be contributing in the same direction.
There is no sizable grey tribe in elite of groups like open A.I , or among rationalists. Scott Aarronson is part of sjw waves. This is the guy who promoted the idea of being the tribe of intellectual diversity but also in A.I. his influence was not at all against promoting the woke party line and double standards (which double standards exist among rationalists on how they see ethnic groups and treat them with some being more equal than others) and called for replacing the red tribe of texas.
Scott Siskind took the side of George Soros in the dispute over Orban and called the later a dictator who opposes conventional opinion in opposing mass migration.
Generally the concept of grey tribe is stupid if it is offered in good faith. Scott Siskind promoted the idea of a sizable neocon centirst faction that is better on culture war issues than the maga right and woke left. In practice people like this are part of the far left with exception of being zionists, which actually the woke democrat establishment (that rationalists have supported Democrat canditates as the Democrats became more extreme, not to mention a notorious figure that got imprisoned recently. We have seen how this kind of political coalitions rule of "reasonabe" "centrist" "liberals" or liberal "conservatives", and they follow the far left agenda.
The only difference with other wokes might be being a limited hangout, or slightly heterodox.
Rationalist Liberals are probably more far left, extremist, sjwish than average liberals worldwide. There is no sizable grey tribe of liberals to save you. Liberals who are independent of the sjws are an insignificant group when push comes to shove.
People that might fit somewhat like Elon Musk are not clearly accepted as liberals. So having some liberal views =/ being liberal.
So there might be more than two sides around, but I deny the idea of almost all politically relevant liberals that they are separate from the woke left.
Because liberals are authoritarian for the imposition of their dogma, A.I. even before AGI when used by them will be used for coersion and centralization and to bring forth things into a more totalitarian end. If other groups manage to use decentralized technology (like we have seen with social media and even video platform) or more moderate people (like Elon) promote non woke A.I Though Elon also is sometimes submissive to groups like ADL and it is X steps forward Y steps back with Elon, with the X and Y being debatable. To be fair the pressure he is under and what he has to face leads to difficult situations.
I put no hope at all on liberals to save us from the far left, especially the rationalists but I expect them to bring us the problems of far left. Are people who are slightly heterodox or not even heterodox but not agreeing with the most far left liberals, really grey tribe?
Before AGI surfaces, the world has a human ideology + technology enhancing authoritarianism problem. Which is a more realistic and historically continuous problem. I am suspicious of those demanding power to control A.I by pointing only to the threat of AGI. Malevolent or paranoid human intelligence is a real issue right now, and yes AGI is also a threat, but the threat of totalitarianism from humans who centralize power by controlling A.I and banning use of others should not be underestimated.
Anyway, we need people who are more even handed than liberals to be at control of A.I. and to keep totalitarian dogmatists who tend to also be racist extremists of the worst kind out of influence. This again can not be done by liberals. If AGI does happen, being fed woke ideology threatens to create a monster.
We've also got the neo-luddites like @ArjinFerman who just hate AI entirely and presumably want us to go back to the mid 90s with the fun decentralized internet. Not sure, I haven't actually discussed with him. I can actually agree with some of the Ludditism, but I'd argue we need to go back to 1920 or so and ban all sorts of propaganda, mass media and advertising.
Ludditism doesn't make sense as a strategy for smaller groups to take. If you are in control, maybe you try to put restrictions. If you aren't in charge, how do you compete if you don't use technology? Shouldn't the answer to woke A.I. be to create non woke A.I? Like one of the solutions to youtube has been rumble and odyssey (which apparently now is down). And of course to attempt to get control of some of the central larger platforms of whether video, social media, or A.I.
If someone is a rich guy and non woke and they want to change the world, this is one of the things they ought to fund. Both due to the influence of woke A.I. and because competition can make woke A.I. look worse by comparison. This in turn might influence even that A.I. to be less woke.
Obviously to have non woke A.I. you can't do that if you have dogmatist liberals in charge of controlling it.
To conclude, if some group is going to be serious players in promoting something non woke of influence including non woke A.I. you are going to know it. Just like you knew when Musk took twitter but nobody cared when the republican neocon donor Singer was controlling twitter and appointed the new CEO then. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/dont-like-twitters-new-ceo-blame-paul-singer/
By their fruits of what they do and how they react, you genuinely know people who aren't part of the liberal/woke tribe, and not by self identification. There would be fanfare and much complaining by the woke establishment and many people who like to present themselves as reasonable liberals, but when push comes to shove their influence seems to always help the culturally far left agenda.
I actually expect this to happen. There is no reason why only wokes will utilize AI. Here lies the danger of regulation and the goverment and non goverment bodies trying to shut down any dissent under the pretense of A.I. alignment.
Edit: In a more succinct version of my previous post.
The idea that Jewish faults are not up to debate and non Jewish faults at expense of Jews can be overly focused upon without restraint, is absurd and is understandable why people will increasingly reject this. It is also understandable to see people react against this when such agendas relate to Noel Ignatiev type narratives and come along with increased authoritarianism.
As a movement with such ideology has itself become more influential naturally you see rising opposition. The reality is that the racism, sexism, antisemitism narratives label moderate positions as racist, promote a wildly one sided view, and the groups they favor are definitely not oppressed. Just as feminism by how it clasifies misogyny, is misandrist, same applies to the antisemitic narrative. The Jews who have been themselves very important to a Jewish supremacist movement of course are going to catch more criticism. Especially the powerful Jewish NGOs like the ADL.
Ideally, the progressive framework of sacred cows should be supplanted, with a framework of favoring more balanced, even handed treatment of different identity groups which would include both negative criticisms and and positive observations. A good way to do that would be growing intolerance towards the movement that weaponizes history to promote the wildly one sided narratives. Whether it is done by distorting reality, or by cherry picking events including attrocities and hiding inconvenient ones.
Rather than letting people like Jonathan Greenblat win by getting intimidated by words like slavery, holocaust, racism, antisemitism, we should instead see people ridicule such attempts and reject them. There is nothing inconsistent to thinking for example that the practice of slavery is abhorrent but also having no patience for those using the narrative of slavery to vilify and harm southerners, or Europeans.
This whole thread gives her an opportunity to discuss Jewish suffering and compare it to Palestinian. She indeed directly downplays the violent murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by comparing it to deportation of migrants.
Further bellow she is debating the holocaust as she knew SecureSignals would bite the bait. And most importantly others would jump in the opportunity to show how serious they take this issue.
She recently argued that Williamson was right that white working class communities of the type that voted for Trump deserve to die. And she definitely supports atrocities against Palestinians and their ethnic cleansing.
Cimarafa is definitely a spiteful individual that wants to dish it out and while she promotes destruction and condemnation for other groups promotes sympathy for Jews, accuses others of antisemitism and so on.
It is unreasonable to compare any repatriation of migrants in European countries to their homeland to what is happening to the Palestinians. The mass murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own homeland is analogous to similar historical behaviors of genocidal ethnic cleansing done by many regimes including the Soviet one.
Also, it is immoral for you to keep bringing up Jewish suffering when you promote the take how white Christian communities of Trump supporters deserve to die and support attrocities against Palestinians.
Fundamentally dead Jews from 80 years ago matter less than currently dying Palestinians, because we should care about current events and the past has passed.
Another thing to consider is that Jews in modernity not only suffered but also participated in causing suffering to others. Both as part of the communist movement but also as part of race marxist movements that supports the destruction of western civilization and its people, vilifies them and promotes one sided extreme propagandistic grievance that falsifies history.
The attempt by Jews to impose a Jewish supremacist ideology, makes some of the whining about insetivity to be particularly disingenuous. And this is why this taboo you are trying to take advantage is completly in bad faith and we need the opposite taboo against those trying to manipulate history in this manner.
Empathy towards the Jews is manipulated for purposes of elevating Jewish lives above non Jewish lives and to support screwing non Jews.
This milking of history by people who want to manipulate others to empathize with them while they are racist supremacists themselves ought to stop. So we actually ought to be punishing propagandists using Jewish suffering in such a manner to justify stripping groups from their rights. Or to promote a general dishonest narrative of one sided historical victimhood that justifies Jacob ruling over Esau.
Also important to decriminalize discussion of historical facts even if we ought to make it as taboo as possible if not criminalize using Jewish suffering or slavery to demonize Europeans in general and strip them of their rights. This is to say discussions about facts should be free, but overly milking such events should not be a free action.
Even excessive amount of holocaust, slavery films is suspect, but how things are framed and what narrative they promote is also important. The narrative of Jews as oppressed group that are chosen by God and God's will it to destroy other nations is one narrative that must be condemned and not promoted.
Rather than stopping machiavelian grievance merchants who promoted such narratives for destructive purposes, we had people siding with their crocodile tears about how they are victimized by racists.
Anyway, a moral goal is to stop the grievance merchants and to put different nation states on an equal playing field in regards to certain rights. Including the Jews. Rather than using say their history with communism, or the oppression of Israel towards Palestinians to claim that Jews should have no homeland neither.
So my favorite end result is fairer towards the Jews than your end result towards your various outgroups. So there is an inconsistency here.
Jewish supremacists who want it all at the expense of other ethnic groups such as the Likud faction are kind of paid by the same currency if they are responded to by people who want from the river to the sea a state only for Palestinians. Just like Netanyahou wants from the river to the sea only Israel.
So compromise is a good idea but it can't be a one way street by people who want to promote maximum sympathy for themselves while not respecting at all the rights of others.
Nevertheless for us who want good and moral outcomes, we should pressure the worst behaving faction with power who are destroying their opposite ethnic group on the ground. And we ought to not respect whatsoever such manipulations.
There is a reason why so many countries worldwide including countries that have nothing to do with the middle east like Japan have such a negative view of Israel. It's because the lie that people react negatively to bad Jewish behavior due to them being racist is wrong, and Israel is abusing human rights of Palestinians in a despicable manner that deserves condemnation.
The key factor, then, in whether an expulsion is or is not liable to become a genocide / mass murder is whether the people in question have an ancestral homeland or other ethnostate with the same religious, cultural and ethnic background capable of absorbing them (even if this might be annoying, expensive or politically divisive).
Of course not. The key part of whether mass expulsion is genocidal is if it is done through mass murder. And indeed mass murder, the goal to induce starvation and horrible circumstances to Palestinians, as well as destroying their homes is part of this violent ethnic cleansing.
It is definetly a warcrime that those who support paint themselves in some of the most negative colors.
Also, it is especially immoral to expel people from their homeland and Palestinians homeland is Palestine.
This is about racist supremacist Jews wanting greater Israel. What would be more in line with justice would had been for them to try to agree with a compromise with the Arab world and Palestinians that took seriously both Israeli security and Palestinian statehood that respects Palestinian human rights. This compromise would have come after past mass murderous ethnic cleansing and occupation. So even that would be a big compromise for the Palestinians.
There is a fundamental difference from resisting colonization in your own land by foreigners that leads to your entire destruction as a people (which is unsuprisingly supported by a movement that demonizes your history and people and discriminate against it and that is an important reason why they favor your destruction), to expelling people from their own country to take it for yours. Also, the movement against Europeans milks and utilizes past Jewish suffering against Europeans. And even promotes propagandistic narrative of Jews as historically the inoccent victims who never didn't do nothing, all antisemitic slander and Europeans as the permanent evil oppressors.
The behavior of both Jewish migrants in Israel and of Palestinians in how they are polled and even how they behaved in places like Lebanon is actually indicative of the problems of foreign colonizations.
The one thing both groups have in common is they should not be trusted to rule over others fairly, and shouldn't be destroyed neither.
The world does have an interest in suppressing the more sociopathic elements from being leading those communities. More so for the Jews due to being more influential worldwide. Especially outside their country. Such as suppressing those more narcissistic, sociopathic factions and individuals from destroying and mistreating foreign ethnic groups and having power over them. Also there are non Jews who have been influenced into being Jewish supremacists who favor the destruction and oppression of non Jewish ethnic groups and share the same pathological extremism, including the hypocricy of pretending that they are against "racists", when they are the worst ones and people are correct to oppose them.
So there is an interest in changing the prevailing ideology among Jews and having them be less self serving. But really, what can observe when looking at the history of Israel, Jewish mega ngos and groups of billionairs connected with people like Epstein and Mossad like MEGA, polls and behavior is that there has been a continuous core element of Jewish establishment which has been Jewish supremacist against other ethnic groups and organized to use their power against them. And the Jewish community has had some sympathy for that. But there has been also some divergence which was reduced as that establishment got them in line. Crisis is used to get Jews in line, since they have absorbed a mentality of the inoccent martyr.
If that establishment is broken and Jewish elites are both moderate at Israel and in diaspora, less influential abroad and also the dominant non Jewish elites who would be influential worldwide are moderates, and I consider you the opposite of that then a greater bulk of the Jews would behave morally, as they are subject to moderate memes that promote the idea that the rights of Jews/non Jews end where each others begin.
That we even allow Jewish supremacists to promote their propaganda and to be a faction acting freely is a mistake. We well know by now that it is a faction that is fanatically spiteful, totalitarian, greedy, cruel, dishonest and ruthlessly destructive. It should be a faction that is suppressed and condemned.
Obviously, because propaganda is dominated by people like you who are very hostile against white people. The people targeted by Stalinist trials but ended up murdered also in majority of cases professed their love of the great Stalin, admitted their errors but still their final fate didn't change. Maybe they saved some relatives from murder or spared themselves torture. But Stalin was not worthy of love and themselves not worthy of hatred for being persecuted by his regime.
The reality is that all nationalists are capable of violence and all groups deserve rights and people to promote them else other nationalists will go extreme and screw them over. In the current situation where there are no pro white organisations with significant institutional influence but there are plenty of anti white pro other groups organizations, the excess of nationalism we have is not of the white variety. Hence, the obsession about the first over the later is for the same reasons that when a trans antiwhite shooter shot Christian kids at a school, the Biden administration talked about how they stand with the trans community but not the Christian community. Its all about the racist sympathies of those in control of institutions. Its for the same reason that when it has been discussed or from being underdiscussed many people in this community are unaware of the various genocides of ethnic groups commited by the communists.
There isn't a unique evil to white people and their tribalism. Right now a different form of nationalism is the one committing the most violence. Moreover white people who aren't white nationalist but are unhinged nationalist for different groups are right now contributing more to violence than white nationalists.
Beyond the issue of promoting the interests (valid or excessive) of a group, there is also the issue of communities rights to existence, their own traditions, etc, etc. People deserve their religious and ethnic communities to not be persecuted and part of the richness of humanity does lie significantly in its different ethnic groups and their different ways of being. Ironically the cultural marxist idea of destroying whites to end racism is the more homogenizing vision against world diversity. Although it won't suceed and even if it would it wouldn't work and there will be conflict among non white different ethnic groups that colonize western countries. The cultural revolution that destroys many ethnic group's culture and existence is evil for what it does to them in particular and unjust, and obviously humanity as a whole is deprived. No more white people and destroying their culture, and shitting on their ancestors and civilization is also an evil against humanity as a whole.
And of course in addition to nationalists of the more obvious variety, marxist nationalists and even marxist fanatics against nationalism have their own legacy of blood. But the pressure isn't towards this ideology and its adherents for the mountains of skulls and unfortunately so. Marxist ideology can suck so much that it can share with it the more extreme elements of nationalism.
What are those? But extreme antinationalism at expense of the hated outgroup. Like the nazis considered Poles, Greeks, Russians, and yes Jews too to be a threat to them, so does George Soros in accordance to his son, obviously ADL, obviously you, consider European Christians a threat to minorities.
The extremist antinationalist who sees as evil a community of people existing in their homeland and the religous, or moderate nations that want to continue to exist is a case of the first tribalist for antitribalism being far worse extremists. People who try like Trotsky to collectivize individualism and really hate ethnic groups just for existing are incredibly dangerous and have an enormous legacy of blood. They are also oppressive totalitarians beyond just the threat of death. Beyond just ethnic groups, we should also be concerned about the threat of these fanatics to right wingers too. Like a majority of French for example want France to remain France and oppose mass migration. The movement you are part of sees this as white supremacy and nazism too. Many millions of decent people, just for wanting their ethnic and religious communities to continue existing and opposing self genocide are seen as iredeemably evil under the inanely evil antifa framework.
The hatred based on ideology against nationalists and religious people and against those who aren't far left by the the far left has such enormous legacy of blood, and repression, that it requires also more recognition as a great evil, than just the ethnic persecution although they are directly related. To the extend people think that they aren't persecuting ethnic groups (they are) but just people who hold an ideology, well your ideology persecuting perspective has destroyed a huge number of good people and has shown it self incapable of restraint.
The hateful oppressive societies that are created by this mix, demonize particular ethnic groups in this case white ethnic groups, and lead to violence, toleration of crime and also a more slavery like society with less rights and freedoms for the outgroup. Certainly no freedom of speech but also no freedom to a community and self respect but imposition of humiliation, cruelty and very low status. Plus such policies as in south africa of extreme racism against whites and abadonment of standards, tolerating criminality, leads to societal decline and collapse.
The less violent inducing ideological mix would be to tolerate white tribalism, but not promote white ultranationalism, excessive rights for whites at expense non whites and also to limit in the same manner the tribalism for non white groups. Yes all nationalist ideologies can go too far (so there is a threat of violence by all of them but also by people who identify as antinationalist humanitarian types but their far left ideology has a greater legacy of cruelty than most nationalist ones) and ironically one of the ways they do this is to not recognize any rights for other ethnic groups. Going too little can result in self hatred and identifying with excessive nationalism for other groups as it is happening right now.
Nationalism is also related with not only bad things in its excess but opposing oppressive empires and creating free national state democracies where ethnic groups are able to live freely. The multiethnic (and multireligious) situation is often a situation where some ethnic or religious groups dominate this multiethnic state impose a second class citizen status on the others. Cultural marxists are people who do have enormous sympathies and enormous antipathies. If you do have a multiethnic society, allowing no group rights and identification with their own interest for the majority/pluralirty ethnic group designated as threat of everyone else, is how you create a racist supremacist caste system, and oppress the majority/plurality too.
Self respect and defending your legitimate rights is a good thing. Promote reciprocity and the idea that where one groups rights end another's begin. Wreck and not tolerate the antiwhite ultranationalist ideology where white groups can do no right and non white groups can do no wrong. There is a sweet spot in the level of native tribalism for white ethnic groups which includes white tribalism for either groups like white americans in a more direct manner or as a supranational more broader civilizational group identity.
But I do think the primary ethnic identity for say the Europeans should be their nation but that national identity does relate to being a european. Amway there is a sweet spot level of respecting the tribalism of white people for non whites too. Non whites should also respect and share the idea that a) white groups have certain national group rights b) non white groups have certain national group rights.
This idea can exist for different groups as the prevalent idea if we push for it to exist. And it did exist more so in the past, but has been eroded by far left antiwhite racists and ethnic tribalist for certain ethnic groups (like in your case the Jews with their organizations being quite important at that) who have excess tribalism for themselves and allow too little group rights for their hated white Christian outgroup ethnic groups. It still exists to some extend in certain european countries and of course among non europeans for themselves.
And this can coexist with the existing framework of international justice which does exist and there are laws for this and should be taken more seriously. Mass migration for example violates the rights of the native peoples. And really same applies to the general cultural marxist agenda which does include always extreme nationalists of the non white variety to the extend their nationalism targets the mutually hated outgroup.
Is changing the pervasive ideology of societies possible? Obviously. Although some societies today are already closer to what I advocate than what you advocate.
Like society can tolerate and promote the current ideological mix, it can promote a different and saner one too. But this would require both people who can't be reasoned to what are their tribal motivations and pretend to be motivated by more universal goals (they really are treating certain groups as utilitalian monsters and others as not deserving jack shit) stop being entrenched in institutions and their ideology not tolerated. Then there the other people who have more genuinely absorbed the false belief that they are virtuous and can do no wrong (the Trotskyist idea that revolutionaries can do no wrong) and demonize others to facilitate this to accept the bitter pill that they have been some of the worst racists of history who have done to their ethnic outgroup, sometimes including their own ethnic group by ancestry, a great evil.
Will the pro Israel people promoting this line of argument so consistently try to pay a little attention to the pro Jewish far left?
Recently, Harvard declared that Jews are to be considered as non white as far as their policies go. Many far left donors decided that wokeness is just fine but not criticisms towards Jews or Israel. So what are you doing about the influential faction that is pro jewish and anti white, and wants Jews high in the progressive stack? Because it seems that only focusing on muslim wokeness is helping them to get their agenda through.
Also, unlike the fact that the woke left is promoting nonsense, Palestinians are genuinely oppressed. Both in West Bank and in Gaza. days ago I heard the number 10000 dead. Their homes have been mass obliterated.
It is the Jewish side which abuses identity politics. Of course if one looks at the politics of palestinians, they are if they are accepted as immigrants on mass join with movements against the native people. But they are oppressed in their homeland.
My problem with leftist whining is not the same with the Green Greenwald antiwar type of opposition to actual attrocities. It is ironically excessive tribalism, feelings over facts emotionalism, manipulative and identity politics to disminish real issues because of dichotomizing politics into different packages of beliefs and tribal allegiances. So we should reject as leading humanity into monstrous teritory to dismiss actual morality, due to our correct opposition to those who complain over BS and are actually the oppressive force in society. Actually the Jewish identitarians qualify more as part of this than being targeted by this and the reinforcement of Jewish victimhood including with Christians and Europeans as perpetrators is something we constantly see. My stance is that the obvious antiracist path is these cult of personalities for ethnicities to stop and to recognize that Jews didn't do nothing and is all evil non jewish, or white and christians and demonizing othe ethnic groups and calling any resistance and disagreement as antisemitism, is actually insanely racist hate speech, which shouldn't be tolerated. Actually the anti racist and less tribalist and more moral and factual path is to aknowledge that the Jews and also non jewish racists in favor of Jews, have done and are doing plenty against europeans, palestinians and should stop. Books like one written from a Jewish rabbi I found once about the Jewish role in multiculturalism and victimhood industry that is negative about it but has a reconciliatory tone.
Is there an element of third world nationalism islamist and even anti western in the broad sense civilization that is pro palestine? Of course. And same applies with pro Jewish, probably even more so among institutional power but probably less applied to the ground activists.
But that should be addressed directly, rather than us at any point thinking the correct attitude to it is to support atrocities against the Palestinians. At the end of the day, ethnic groups that I consider extremists (and I consider the Jews to be an ethnic group with pervasive problem of extremism and racism) and don't want them to rule over others still have human rights. So do others, since there are some Jews with sane politics and non Jews who are racists for Jews and other groups.
The way I talk about human rights and I don't have Israel in mind which actually is a country that routinely violates the genuine human rights of others its not a suicide pact, not an excuse to avoid self defense or pathological altruism. Its about avoiding predatory attrocities but still defending yourself and taking the right measures that do not allow criminal factions to act with impunity. Punishment is still a necessary element of justice and so is people with criminal agendas being stopped from enacting said agendas.
Also in regards to coalitional politics, you should try to give the anti woke you are trying to appeal a better offer. Because I see the Jewish supremacist antiwhite left (part of that are many neocons who are leftists and converge in most things ADL does and are the type to call for replacing the white working class) being the faction that gets most of what it wants. It includes in it those who pretend it doesn't exist by the way and promote postmodernist FUD on reality.
That some of the people this manipulative one sided offer aren't playing harder to get and making demands probably has something to do with why they are never getting a better offer. Its a relationship when one party makes unconditional demands and willing to call you a jew hater and evil or nazi if you don't go along with them, and the other party's reaction is grosslly idiotic if it just complies with this moral blackmail. It is also dishonorable Reek behavior. The attitude of "if you don't give us what we want we will slander you" is a very good reason additionally to be hostile to the pro jewish racist faction. Which slanders your ancestors and anyone who isn't subservient to them anyway.
Anyhow, in both the USA and in Britain, people are persecuted both for supposed Islamophobia and supposed anti jewish sentiment. The end result isn't targeting hatred but promoting supremacy of said groups and promoting totalitarianism.
Why shouldn't Christians and the native european types demand to be treated with respect and getting at least some level of protection instead of unconditionally supporting a faction that has been quite comfortable to a) mistreat them due to their identity politics and part of this mistreatment includes the enforced consensus of Jewish moral superiority and opposition to valid criticisms b) have been actually willing to make some common ground with third world nationalist especially non islamists (of course delegitimizing the rights of the native people also makes common cause with them) but even allow room against negativity towards muslims, at least when done outside pro jewish context, but have been very hostile to european tribalism. This is a very bad offer provided by those who are much more willing to promote aggressively pro jewish identity politics than work to support or tolerate the identity politics of others. Not to mention the support of the invade the world types for the invite the world agenda.
The end point of both islamist and pro jewish faction's agenda and what they are promoting is a progressive stack intersectionality that has some level of compromise among those two factions and is a totalitarian racist supremacist society at expense of right wingers, christians, europeans and other groups not part of the progressive stack alliance. While lying about how it is a society against racism, for freedom and the typical lies. Actually Britain is one example of a society already there and will go even further in said direction on the short term. However, I don't think the currently pro jewish direction is stable.
Of course, the pro jewish faction are going to find that their victories have plenty to do with native westerners being willing to stupidly side with them which doesn't apply actually to many of the people they invited over at the expense, especially with changing of the guard of power and even the guilible native westerners can just take so much abuse, especially as it intensified and new generations have been turning against them. Plus their cause is blatantly unjust also in Palestine. Lets just say that I don't expect on the long term the white-ish Jews to be treated very well as the west stops being the west and some of those of native descent identify with an antiwhite ideology which is going to be hostile to Jews too and remaining parts of the west in spirit too understand how hostile the Jews have been and are to them, and therefore are not pro Jewish when the Jews have consistently mistreated them. But for the majority of those Jews who have been participating in politics and the culture war it would be reaping what they have sowed.
*** But aren't the Jews supergeniuses who wouldn't pursue this strategy if it could prove detrimental? I don't see this display of supergenius. I see a disciplined fanatical attempt to promote jewish identity politics and a resentful prejudice agaisnt european christians. There is some method in the madness and to the racist agenda but plenty of irrationality too. Their arrogance exceed the Ashkenazi Jewish IQ. In their interaction with the right and europeans and christians they really are driven by irrational racist resentment with a heavy crossover with parts of non jewish left too which have succeeded also due to fanaticism, ruthlessness and probably some other advantages but also quite irrational and driven by resentment. They are more willing to compromise and respect ironically left wing identity politics despite the cynical targeting of it.
I blame the western right and native people in smaller part. The reason both the left and the Jews in west have become so resentful and unwilling of any sane compromise with them was the fact that the right wing have been complete pushovers and that feed into the arrogance of the Jews and he far left. This is why they demand that the right be self hating racist pushovers or else call them nazis. They have become accustomed to this, even though it would make more sense to be much kinder to the european natives.
Enforcing moderation and good rules and not allowing people to promote one sided racist demagoguery and propaganda at your expense and then pretend that they are antiracists and anyone else is a nazi antisemite, was the sane thing that the non Jewish establishment failed to do. Fixing things requires we do just that and not tolerate this kind of propaganda ever again.
The elite networks and organizations of today discriminate in favor of minorities and the philosophy associated with civil rights act and how it has applied in practice does not take sufficiently seriously any even handed aspects to the law as written.
At such, not only repealing civil rights act but empathising that it is racism and illegal to screw over the non progressive associated identity groups would be necessary.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to entertain the framework of historically oppressed protected groups, as a valid framework. In fact, to the extend discrimination is illegal, or comes with fines, such framework would end up costing for those who apply it.
The arguement that civil rights act might no longer be necessary as the minimum arguement might had made more sense in the past, but if the arguement of civil rights act has been about pervasive influence or conspiracy of groups like KKK, today we can observe a different pervasive ideology. Saying that there isn't racism today would be inaccurate and adopt the framework of progressive idea of racism where they don't count the racism in favor of minorities and against say whites.
You are basically fighting the old war. I also don't see why we need to face these questions in such an indirect way, instead of directly observing whether current American society is favoring, trying to be neutral towards, or mistreating X or Y group. So we will directly reach the truth of the matter you want to investigate, by investigating it directly. I sincerely do not buy into this idea that such things are such as inherently complex mystery that is hard to ascertain. It is convenient politically to be a mystery for one side that their side has a weak case based on the evidence. Actually, who a society favor is going to be reflected in the rhetoric of elites, the dominant NGO groups, the laws and how they are enforced, and so on, and so forth. If you do know that groups that can be favored can even perform worse due to HBD for example, although there are differences in behavior that aren't just HBD and other factors that can also lead to groups that are favored to do worse on some metrics of success, there isn't really a mystery here about what is happening.
Some issues are not actual debates where both sides have a valid case, just because there are two sides that are unwilling to compromise. Although, there is some compromise, well sort of. When you see the celebration paralax that is telling enough. The opposite side to what I argue will sometimes admit that it is true but "what you are going to do about it" i.e. might makes right, or use an arguement like its karma, revenge, and celebrate it basically.
Some of the rhetoric of progressives about protecting groups from discrimination does have a validity today. But it is about protecting from progressive racist "antiracist" movement, including "conservative" politicians that have aligned with it and such ethnic lobbies.
However, obviously, if you are to use power to oppose a cartel that screws X to benefit Z, you ought to be very careful about overcorrection if the goal is to oppose discrimination and be willing to reverse things if they have gone too far. And actually take seriously even handed applications of the law if anti discrimination is the goal. Contrary to the assertion that I have seen that even conservatives shouldn't reverse things, lest they become reactionaries, reversal of bad policy is a preresequite of wise governance in general.
Since anti-discrimination laws end up applying in intent of many involved with bringing them in fruition and practice as a manner of screwing over the progressive and their ethnic and other identity groups it comprise as permanent outroups, that negative precedent should be empathized as part of revoking not only civil rights act but Britain's and other country's equality act, hate speech laws, etc, etc, and to pass laws in favor of removing from influence and prosecuting with high prison time people who under the pretense of anti racism violate the civil rights of any group progressives dislike. Especially goverment officials but big business too and also industry wide regulations, or cartels. People behind trying to make this into reality or making this into reality should not just be excluded from influence but find themselves in legal trouble.
We need to be explicit about the betrayal of anti discrimination promise into discrimination towards natives, Christians, europeans, right wingers and associated groups, men, etc, etc. However a motte and bailey between antidscrimination and for discrimination for protected groups, against oppressors, have been a key part of these civil rights movements and their protagonists. So, we should be clear about the nature of it, and denounce it like Stalin has been denounced. We need to aknowledge the problems with such unwise and unjust policy and movement which was an overcorection and has become a very unjust monstrosity at this point.
The situation we are at is that good and moral policy is to enforce this at this stage. Considering how they have succeded in infiltrating the goverment and large corporations and be influential even with FBI with ADL as the worse, based on the ideology of the people who captured institutions. NGO's whose political influence is to do this discrimination activity which would be correctly considered a crime should become illegal, or at minimum fined and excluded to the level that KKK was. But power should be used to minimize the influence of the worst influential NGOs of this type and those who collaborate with them in power.
Like with civil rights act, fines can also be used for organizations for whose reason of existence can be more neutral like a social media, or media platform, where they are incentivized to remove the kind of leadership that is slanted in such direction. A correction against the excesses of our progressive dominated age is the correct way to analyze the current situation. It isn't 1960s where we have to predict how things will turn up. We can see how they did.
Modern Liberalism is not an achievement of white people and is infused with racist authoritarian far leftism and the legacy and influece of marxists but also of black and Jewish identitarians and groups that identified with their sex and other minorities. The anti-tribalism of liberals is a falsity since they promote racist policies and entrench hate speech, while pathologilizing all opposition.
The reality is that the enlightnement in addition to promoting good things, also promoted the Jacobin mentality. There is a legacy of modernity of far left extremism that is negative and destructive from the french revolution to today and which also enabled and sided and used by foreign ultranationalists.
Also, while it preexisted the enlightenment, the enlightenment produced also nationalism as an ideology. It really hasn't just produced only one thing.
Things associated with liberalism can be good when they coexist with conservative and native nationalist principles. And that has been the historical west. A society that enforced conservative moral mores but also that coexisted with some liberal mores. That promoted its own native interests but also there was an internationalist ideal.
Liberalism absent the restraints and influence of conservatism and pro native nationalism with the double standards of the left, becomes the far left. And that is the agenda that modern liberalism promotes.
An agenda of treating white people and other groups as pathological and other groups as groups that can do no wrong and whose tribalism should remain entrenched and not questioned. Part of the hostility to white identitarianism has to do to its opposition to excessive tribalism for non white and its opposition to anti white racism. And part of it also has to do with a nation destroying agenda that destroys something good, oppresses good people and results in the Trotskyist mentality of the destroyers who believe that they the people of revolution can do no wrong.
No, the people of this mentality are not "goodguys" as they believe, but the opposite.
So in conclusion, liberalism is flawed, but also deeply erroded by far leftism and today's liberalism is an ideology that isn't consistent about antitribalism but concern trolls and marxist and liberal nationalism and tribalism for left wing associated groups and the progressive stack is the dominant aspect of modern liberalism in both rhetoric and deed. It is an act of siding with this to pretend otherwise when only criticism can save modern liberalism from itself. The legacy that made the west great has not been liberalism but the coexistence of liberalism, or rather aspects of liberalism with other ideologies like conservatism, religious morality, national consciousness. However, the mentality of purity spiral in the liberal and left wing direction lead to utterly terrible ideologies getting influence which are destroying the west in a manner that we see play out. Indeed becoming South Africa is an obvious end point of modern liberalism. Although things could progress even worse than that. To make the west great again, removing far left extremism from institutions and fixing the dominant ideology to not include the extreme elements of liberalism is the way to go.
One of the key problems of modern liberalism is the fanatical purity spiral idea in favor of its own legacy and intolerance to what is valuable outside liberalism that liberalism can lack. Even more so when talking about modern liberalism which really has been erroded too much by far left and is inconsistent and lacks even the virtues of liberalism. Modern liberalism is not an ideology that promotes equality under the law, neutrality, objectivity, and certainly while it can be flawed, to an extend some lack of tribalism can be good (but too much is bad). Modern liberalism does not do that. It is a dishonest ideology which is about being racist for your favorite tribes but pretending to be antiracist and concern trolling your ethnic outgroup. To the extend it affects people to have this preference at the expense of their own group this is to such an extreme degree to be fair to consider it to be promoting the treasonous mentality. Its a destructive ideology for the civilizations that are cursed by fate to be ruled by it.
If you don't like their opinion, you should argue about it and not try to censor it by trying to manipulate the rules. Personally, I am much more outraged about people's views excusing warcrimes that happen now than any of the view about 80 years ago.
On the specific issue, I have both a negative view of historical nazis, and the nazi derangement syndrome types who have excused all sort of extremism on the basis of antinazism and try to take the opposite extreme view. There really has been a problem with destructive extremism of American liberals and communists in general, including in their cooperation in the 1940s, but also how they behaved separately while the nazis are also a group that should be seen as a warcriminal group, and not as Europe's defenders.
If under someone's analysis Europeans on the long term would be even worse off with the liberals than if the nazis won WW2, that is an indictment of liberals, and doesn't wash out the crimes of the Nazis against european ethnic groups. However, I also don't think trying to ascertain that is illegitimate, or extreme. This isn't what the person you are replying with were about, since they had an one sided pro mid century german view, but censoring the discussion, also helps excuse the extremism of liberals.
If the rule by so caled liberals, leads to the destruction of Europeans, then that is something insanely negative about liberals, and how the post WW2 order evolved. That matters when talking about how valid the good vs evil narrative is, and how good USA, one of the victor of WW2 has been.
Really?
Even in recent events propaganda rages. While the fog of war exists for me too, there are plenty of Israel warcrimes that have been reported over the years.
https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1711364819863888227#m
There is also deliberate bombing of civilians. Israel has murdered far more than just 250 civilians.
There is no moral equivalence if you are a racist who excuses Jewish warcrimes because you believe Jews are superior and non Jews are inferior.
In reality, Americans are incredibly propagandized by Jewish supremacists to become themselves Jewish supremacists. Although some Americans quite more than others. And some deliberately pretend that Israel hasn't done its very fair share of warcrimes.
Yes, this will probably end with mass civilian casualties among the Palestinians of Gaza. Hamas maybe shouldn’t have started a genocidal war they were guaranteed to lose.
Love the passive voice. So you don't even oppose the genocidal war but support it because Hamas started it. Like Hamas started the occupation, after all.
So you support genocidal war by only blaming Hamas for it and not Israel and people like yourself with your bloodthirst, racist bias you support the murder of countless of inoccents in war.
Incidentally, aren't the people of Hamas using your logic to murder Jews? How are you any better than them, when you justify genocidal war and excuse the perpetrators?
Unlike the Palestinians, or even Hamas, your call for revenge doesn't even have the excuse of your country being occupied.
It isn't a mystery that aggressively calling for restraint and trying to keep the zionist genocidal fanatics and warmongers who even want to escalate things to war with Iran down, is the prudent course. Having lived through the mass propaganda of the Iraq war, the current situation smells exactly like that. A bunch of dangerous propagandists out for blood putting civilization in course for destruction.
So no, you are fully 100% at fault for your own rhetoric, and Israel for their own actions. They always had the opportunity to act in a far more restrained manner than they have done. From the very beginning of this conflict that has been a Jewish supremacist imperialist grab.
Simultaneously, it would be a good idea to keep down annoying muslim fanatics too with their own global imperialist nuttery and disrespect towards others. And of course the antiwestern fanatics with their colonizing visions under the pretense of decolonization.
Of which, Jewish supremacists dreaming of ethnically cleansing Palestinians to send them to europe are part of. It is in fact imperative that Israeli reprisals show restraint and avoid the mass murder of civilians. And simultaneously Israel should finally abadon its vile illegal settlements. Maybe the creation of a palestinian state in those areas with nobody of Hamas allowed inside and the preresequite for peace being Hamas to be gone in general. Of course the Jewish supremacist fanatics which includes non Jews have no interest in that and of course Hamas has no interest in itself to be gone.
The main group of non Jewish, Jewish supremacists are mainly from western countries. And these people not only become racist supremacists of extreme proportions but also betray their own countries and nation by aligning with an ultranationalist agenda that is incredibly intolerant and hostile to western civilization in the broadest sense and its component nations and sees it as an antisemitic oppressor to be exploited or destroyed. Or pretends cynically it is an antisemitic oppressor to justify their racist agenda for its destruction. In either case, Jewish tribalism is incredibly racist against the main countries outside of Israel that tend to support it and despises the native people of said countries. Unlike in Israel, the Jews support mass migration and oppose any rights of national identity for their non Jewish victims. For the same reason they support colonization of Palestinian land by Jews, and oppose Palestinian human rights and nationhood. Because they are racist imperialists of extreme proportions who do not respect the rights of others. And fundamentally same as the non Jewish, Jewish supremacists. Including the aware proponent who have ideologically adopted an insane treasonous ideology, and the useful idiot component who ends up helping those who despise them.
One of the most annoying things about Jewish extremism is not only they are extreme nationalists but they are utterly unwilling to admit it and will gaslight you. Crybullying 101. Yes, Israel is an extreme nationalist country, that is occupying even more land on top of their previous murderous ethnic cleansing, and take various racist policies in the open prison they have palestinians in. Plus their army engages in warcrimes.
Of course Israel is just one example of the issue which is that Jews even outside Israel and not just in Israel are really hardcore racists and support discriminating against the non Jewish ethnic groups of the area and don't respect their national rights. Rights which they assert for themselves.
So the problem that Jews are massive racists is very much real, and those who deny it are making things up and promoting a very false vision of reality.
I don't know about you, but I prefer if ethnic groups weren't massive racists and respected each others rights instead of operating with a mentality that what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine and then lying to your victims.
The pervasive choice that Jews engaging in waging the culture war like you do is to be as racist as possible and deny wrongdoing instead of accept rightfully and justly the error that their peoples have done over the years against other ethnic groups.
I disagree. It doesn't gesture, it directly says what it says.
You are trying to censor an opinion you disagree with. He is saying that the Nazi Germans had foresight about the consequences of a world dominated by USA and Soviets . What is there that isn't plain? I am not saying that view is correct, but it isn't violating any speak plainly rule.
You should simply directly argue your opposite opinion including your disagreement with that poster's apparent sympathies for mid century Germany.
I'd be happy to read an open and evidenced defense of Nazi ideology or historical actions, but this isn't that.
And? It doesn't have to be.
Scott is missing the point or has to miss it based on how far he can go.
We aren't dealing with a consistent standard about cultural appropriation but an honor culture than mandates special status and respect about certain special identity groups which is also hostile against other ones like especially white Christians, on the exact basis of sympathy for the first at expense of the later.
Reducing the pro jewish, pro black, or pro native american nationalism, and treating such groups as inherently less deserving of their current status of honor and respect, will reduce the problems of "cultural appropriation".
"Lived Experience" is used mainly to argue that as a black/jewish/brown/whatever I understand certain things about my own people's suffering and reality and shouldn't be challenged, and it would be racist to do that. This is usually an one sided narrative that blames others too much and deflects excessively blame for their group. This should be opposed. People self identifying in such a way, does infringe on the rights of others. They promote extreme identity politics at expense of other groups.
Are there areas where it doesn't and we could tolerate their way of identifying without suffering such consequences? There are, but we should be very careful with that.
Both on the trans issue, and in here, Scott's position leads to siding with the "lived experience" claimants even in the way that their behavior would be harmful towards others. Because the tolerance of their lived experience is weaponized to crush dissent and enforce self serving narratives in their favor, or force people to accept things they consider untrue.
I will also say that while I don't think we should have the cult of personality we got now towards groups like Jews, blacks, and others, I also don't think that Jews, native Americans, or blacks should have to accept peoples who don't fit into their group, in their group. And neither should I.
Even though I don't belong in their group, I really do like to say what I believe is true and not to be forced to say what is untrue. So I am not going to say that Rachel Dolezal is black, because she isn't. Same with the trans issue. The authoritarianism in favor of everyone else accepting their narrative of themselves is something that shouldn't be missed when someone promotes arguments about respecting people's lived experience.
Now, if she wants to live among the black community, I am not going to stop her.
I realize the more sensitive among my readers might be worrying that I, as a white person, have no right to criticize the Mi’kmaq Indians’ membership policies. This is a fair concern. But I worry that all of this is white people’s fault.
I don't know if he is trolling us deliberately, but he just pulled the Jewish meme of "as a fellow white, it is white people fault", in an article that includes in him a arguing about the importance of his Jewish identity and that there are hoops one must jump to belong to his particular group, or others. Then he argued that we should still be tolerant to edge cases that had a lived experience as part of such groups.
Well, there are various articles and even tweets by Jews saying that they aren't white. And it has been used in relation to this exact debate about how to treat different groups with the arguement that Jews should be treated differently as another oppressed minority.
We also have had various examples of Jews like Jon Steward argue that white people are acting badly and that WE whites have done bad. And then in other instances, Jon argues that Jews and blacks should ally to get whitey.
That is Jews is the US and whites is the OTHER.
it is also unfair to blame singularilly whites for this issue when if only whites voted and decided it would be the more right wing party that would win elections. And:
a) by just blaming whites it covers up for the disproportionate role of Jews, some of which don't identify as white, and others might be willing to still identify as Jews and see whites as hostile other. Whatever the case even if they were to count as white, Jewish whites had had a disproportionate role that ought not be hidden as part of just a general white problem. Especially in regards to NGOs, we see plenty of influential Jewish NGOs that are explicitly Jewish NGO's and I am not aware of influential currently white NGO's as explicitly white NGO's. Indeed some Jewish NGOs like ADL are especially influential and important in promoting this kind of morality of intersectional supremacy under the guise of anti racism, where they even adopted a definition that one can't be racist against whites.
b) Obviously American blacks have had a healthy influence in such debates directly and even more so indirectly.
c) White non Jewish liberals and plenty of supposed moderates and some conservatives to a lesser extend, respect and succumb to the prejudices of groups like blacks or Jews who as community do have their problems of ethnocentric racism in favor of themselves and against their outgroup. By blaming just whites for those issues, Scott who is engaging in identity politics in doing so and fails to be neutral, is repeating this problem of transferred nationalism and of deflecting any blame from non whites, to blame whites.
It is extremely important to understand that transferred nationalism is a key part of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to those who aren't part of those tribes. And actual tribalism for their own group in an intersectional alliance for others who belong there.
Like a white Christian who claims that as a Christian he follows the Torah and so is a Jew and so Jews should open their borders to mass Christian migration, Scott's relation with the broader white ethnic group is more complicated at best. It is in fact hostile in important ways. Plus some of the people he promotes and more strongly associates like Scott Aarronson who calls to replace the red tribe of Texas or Mathew Yglesias who has argued that Israel should have more restrictive jewish migration or that is fine, and the USA should have mass migration to have one billion people, there is a clear seperation between what tribes they prioritise. Yglesias even thought that the election of Trump would result in jews being beaten in the streets.
Like New York Times Goldberg writting "We will replace them", Scott Aarronson's call of replacement was ethnically charged, especially when one reads his response to negative comments, whining about antisemitism. What he wanted was to be able to dish both racism, and extremism against his political opposition without backlash.
The mask of neutral rationalists is hiding the reality underneath.
Ultimately, in relation to the Jews I kind of agree with parts of Scott's view, of showing some tolerance for cases that qualify. There is in fact a biological difference between Europeans and even Ashkenazi Jews. But in a certain more broader white category, Ashkenazi Jews and even some others could fit, there are many Jews in Israel from north africa who are too brown to fit, but most American jews look white enough to fit in a broader white category. And there are American Jews who see whites in general as part of their team and people, in a way that Scott doesn't, and most Jews don't. In their case their Jewish identity is more like another white American subgroup identity.
Historically, before late 19th century and 20th century mass migrations of more nationalistic and anti-european and anti-christian radical Jews, and the organization of a lobby and organizations of such nature, the Jews in the USA fitted more normally as part of the white category and behaved with less antagonism.
For decades, and today many Jews do see themselves us a seperate tribe and have an antagonistic relationship with non Jewish whites. Especially the Jews who matter the most in influence, of powerful organizations. They see whites and Christians as the threatening other. So it is inaccurate and having their cake and eating it too, to consider Jews like Scott as belonging in the same white ethnic category as non Jewish whites. The double standards among Jews about supporting the Jewish ethnostate and restrictive immigration of Jews there, while supporting anti native racism, antiwhite racism and mass migration is rather notable.
Also current mainstream Liberalism is not a neutral political agenda but ethnically charged against white Christians.
Scott has a strong Jewish identity. In Hungary he sides with Soros who sees Europeans as a threat to Jews and other minorities and he supports utterly destructive to survival of european nations mass migrations and calls one of the democratically elected leaders who oppose this, in Orban, with the label dictator. In an article that attacks Orban precisely for opposing mass migration. So please, especially if you are a Jewish liberal/neocon, with a strong Jewish identity, you should stop with the fellow white identification. Just like you wouldn't accept someone with a strong white and Christian identity who was as hostile to Jews as you are to white Christians, doing the same against Jews.
I do think some Jews like Amy Wax do identify with whites in a manner that is respectable and genuine and deeper. And a Jew can also not identify with them but also be more moderate and have a more balanced and just worldview than what is promoted by Scott, or those even worse than him.
TLDR in a general sense, if you belong in a category that is more fuzzy and more on the edge, it matters a great deal, in regards to whether you are part of X, if you are philo-X group and seeing them as your group, and not as antagonistic to your primary identity category. If you have at all another identity, it must be weaker and you ought to compromise and accept the X identity, to belong in X. Of course, if your category isn't even in the edge, then you can't be part of said groups. You still ought to be treated with more respect if you are outside category but friendly, than if you have some commonalities but hostile.
The reality is that internet people promoting HBD already have some influence. It only takes taking more institutions and promoting such views in them to gain even more influence. More of the right should be promoting said facts.
Public hypocrisy is the only way out that will be accepted unless you are ready to go the Nietzsche and Gobineau route (and you are not).
No, it is important to confront racial disparities. Plus, at worst a cultural version of HBD is necessary to be promoted or else the entire centrist and right wing project collapses.
If the answer to "why disparities" is not "they happen", then you can't really even tepidly oppose the left.
So the most politically correct answer should basically be HBD without elaboration as to why.
Else the liberal narrative that distorts reality will dominate.
We just have seen Musk promote some HBD accounts, so things can be pushed further.
Also, it is impossible to promote anything with this mentality as the liberal ideal is to frame anything but submission as racism and you being a bad person tm with various label. And same applies to all the identities, whether feminism and women, blacks, jews, you name it.
I would suggest that BAP stops promoting shit like "Billions will die" and stuff like that in his twitter account, while not promoting abandonment of the field on more reasonable issues.
Moreover, BAP is a Jew. And we see plenty of Jewish supremacists promote their own superiority using all the angles. Plus non Jews who are Jewish supremacists who also do this.
Religious and how the bible says that God had chosen Jews and others should serve them. HBD obviously. Oppression olympics, holocaust/eternal victimhood of how they are the most oppressed ever. Framing any dissent as antisemitism. As supporters of the left who have done good. Or even the idea that favor them so they favor you and they are so accomplished because of cultural reasons, because they are awesome.
These narratives go a step beyond explaining that inequalities exist, but promoting servility towards Jews and justifying hardcore double standards.
Obviously the left's narrative about women and blacks in regards to men and whites is bigoted too and supports superior treatment. Moreover, we do get articles and research in academia about women being superior to men.
If these kind of narratives can exist, why can't a more ethical and moderate and benign narrative that disparities exist, be promoted? In fact it is completely central to the moderate and right wing project to promote such narratives and many right wingers constantly did, in addition to those who didn't do it. The more politically correct version of this, would be something that you are going to find right wingers argue even in the mainstream.
Maybe the reason rightists lose is because a lack of nerve and will to promote consistently views that actually counter the left. The left promotes a bias in favor of its favorite groups and cries racism to dissent. The right agrees. Result -> bias towards said groups. This is basically the entire history of the right, it lose because it was divided between some right wingers who opposed the left, and others who didn't. And then there were some even more left wing like. Those ended up cancelling right wingers whether the neocons in USA or Cameron removing conservatives and preffering liberals in UK.
The most obvious thing to do is to directly argue that yes blacks do have higher crime rates and even be angry at leftists for lying. There is really no point in behaving in accordance to the rules of political correctness. You would lose everything 100 times out of 100. This doesn't mean being as needlessly provocative as possible.
Another issue is BAP's take about democracy being incompatible with this. But the left within a democracy pushed its own agenda at the expense of large % of population by exercising power, passing laws, putting its own people in charge and by promoting its own narratives.
The right wing has tried gatekeeping itself for a century and has being losing while doing so. The left chose a different strategy. The left has tried promoting its own agenda, while framing itself as moderate and moreover fanatically troll the right and tell the right that it ought to behave like leftists to be moderate and not extremists. While using labels for their political opposition constantly, and presenting a distorted picture of reality. I don't want the right to do that, but I do want them to not back off on any matters of truth.
So, in conclusion, it betrays a lack of imagination and not learning from your own mistakes to refuse to outright push for your own ideology. Which doesn't mean to promote the most edgy purity spiral far right ideology out there. Trump's poison of blood statement didn't matter much to most voters, and politician saying something won't be that greatly important. The right should try to take over media/academia with its own people and have them promote HBD. People in power, and in media, promoting your agenda ought to be part of the plan. As we saw with X, once the censorship stops, you genuinely can push this kind of things. If the right ensures an environment where HBDers won't be fired, but would be promoted, but those promoting pseudoscience won't be funded, well that in itself would allow HBD to flourish.
I mean you are an ADL supporter who supports hate speech laws and have never gotten any beef with it from any moderator for it. It is fair to bring it up when you post here to attack me.
Obviously you take the negativity towards the woke for their racist extremism and its hypocrisy personally because you do share that ideology and you resent the valid criticism and want to silence it as this movement has always done.
It wasn't what I implied, so you shouldn't claim that it was. MLK was an antiwhite racist. If he opposed any antiblack racism that existed then too, doesn't change the fact that he was an antiwhite racist.
Also, MLK assumed all disparities were due to discrimination. There is also MLK's immoral personal conduct. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
The mid century US wasn't the same as it had been 100 years earlier, but it was pretty damn racist, particularly where I am from, the deep south.
Well, establishing how much racist against blacks that society really was and how far "seperate but equal" worked in practice would be an interesting question. My view is that it was anti-black and the so called civil right movement opposed that but they exaggerated how much the problem was pervasive with their assumptions of all disparities due to racism and their goal and what they tried to do and did succeed was to change the system into pro black and anti-white. The aspects of the woke agenda was there with them all along. One must also not forget all the riots and violence too.
Fundamentally all progressive "civil rights" movements have been a scam precisely due to this fact of not seeking an honorable end. The general scam about them being about opposing racism and sexism (or misogyny). The same applies with feminism and the other isms, too.
Does this imply that such movements can never have any legitimate grievances? No.They can have them at the start, but as they win, that doesn't apply. And even from the start there is a distortion of history and seeking extreme ends.
If these movements don't succeed in behaving in a sufficiently restrained manner, they should be condemned for that. It has been long overdue, and if it was more pervasive we wouldn't have the excesses in the directions that the so called civil rights movement wanted.
I would argue, of a considerably different social climate than today
The leftist activist climate has a lot of continuity. Things aren't as different as it might seem.
A significant part of the far left is pro Jewish, so it is an abuse of language to pretend otherwise. The far left here includes fake conservatives who support progressive stack, hate speech laws in line of progressive stack and the general narrative of who are the oppressors and oppressed and apply massive doulbe standards on identity politics, is pro migration.
The genuine right does have a common interest against Jewish supremacists with leftists who also oppose them. But some of these same leftists share parts of the agenda of said Jewish supremacists against western countries.
Fundamentally you will get some leftists with ADL like agenda but being pro Palestinian. However this doesn't change the far left nature with those who are zionists and converge with ADL's agenda. What they aren't is moderate. Nor are hate speech laws for a foreign country or the rise of totalitarianism in such direction an example of moderation.
It is generally better for various factions to exist rather than ADL types to dominate and get their way. It is good for the contradictions of different extremists to come with consequences. Rather than the plan of ADL types to unite everyone against Palestinians and their right wing and white and christian outgroups, suceeding in promoting a hateful caste tyranical society.
While a general negative view of the behavior of Jews as a pattern is accurate, fair and antiracist while the opposite is racist in favor of Jews and against non Jews, the term antisemitism carries connotations of prejudice and is a dishonest term. It is both justice and in the interests of various non Jews and of western right to oppose massively pro Jewish racism which is both immoral and at the expense of their people.
Other than that, the category antisemitism as it is used and this vile term that is usually abused usually includes in where it is applied opposing the racism of Jews and promoting moderation and self defense against said behavior which is good. It is a vile term since it is used to legitimize Jewish racism and delegitimize truth and opposition to racism in favor of the Jews.
I don't think it is necessary or is the realistic scenario to talk about genuine mistreatment of Jews, but I don't think the right should have said goal. But perfectly fine to stop and punish the behavior of the worst racist Jews who are Jewish supremacists and to delegitimzie this ideology wherever it can be found. I don't see any positive purpose in treating Jews minding their own business and respecting the rights of others badly. Even though the fact that the weight of their ethnic group's influence on politics falls in the other direction matters and it means that if they side with that they are siding with injustice against others.
To be clear though mistreatment is one thing, promoting a positive general view of the Jews and their behavior is another. It is a behavior which on average is too racist against others, especially when it comes to those with political influence.
Both moderates and right wingers and leftists, opposing the massive atrocities done by Israel in Gaza is a way to both support what is just and in opposing this evil done to the oppressed and murdered Palestinians to delegitimize an evil that is an enemy of your people too. There is a common interest basically, beyond just a partisan sectarian right wing interest for Jewish supremacist ideology to be defeated which benefits the people of the world.
Jews themselves who can coexist with non Jews happily without the specter of conflict and the bad blood done by racist mistreatment of non Jews by Jews, also benefit. But the biggest benefit from less Jewish racism for humanity arises of course through non Jews who are no longer being mistreated. Another element of this is those Jews are more moderate and non Jews who are hardcore racists in favor of Jews. So the more moderate Jews don't have to deal with backlash.
Also seeking an end that doesn't tolerate self serving one sided very racist for the Jews narratives is the only way for political power, since if your view of power is subservient to those of others, and especially those rather racist against you, and authoritarian to boot, you will never get anywhere. Obviously ADL types can not be appeased and are acting based on their own resentments and from a view of dominating all their outgroups. So it is a non starter for the right and everyone really, not to compromise with anti-native, anti non jewish groups and in west in particular anti-white Jewish supremacists. Are there factions of which compromises could be reached? Possibly. Can there be Jews among them? Yes. But the faction that at all converges with ADL which includes plenty of neocons if not most of them, are not compromising people in good faith. It isn't in the interest of the right to open borders to Palestinian or muslim migration or direct influence though. It is again both ethical in general and a good strategy to hold Israel accountable and harm the claims of moral legitimacy of Jewish supremacists by being critical of it for their treatment of the Palestinians, as the world is watching the huge numbers of deaths in Gaza.
Dude, you support mass murder and are praising a state that excludes you from it for its nationalism.
You are definitely a hypocrite.
Not in the least, since I intend to go through legal channels as about the most Westernized an Indian can get, contributing to a valuable profession, and generally being prosocial. My idle musings about my potential path to American citizenship, should it ever materialize, was met with almost unanimous approval from pretty much every side of the political compass, be it here or on Reddit.
You are an antiwestern racist who doesn't respect the native peoples human rights to national self determiantion and sovereignity and have said you would vote for the political party the democrats which is the most unhinged in said direction. Also, you are not part of the Western people you are replacing and making a minority in their own country but part of the colonization and discrimination. When you arrive to the USA you will benefit from discrimination in your favor and join the forces of discrimination against the natives. Which you are screwing by displacing and replacing in their own land.
Your migration is not the same as small migration from and towards a country that respects it self, and is sustainble, but part of colonization.
The Israelis care about numbers and not being overwhelmed by foreign ethnic groups and you praise them for it. Why? Because you are hypocritical.
Ah yes, you (might) have genuine appreciation for the Palestinian cause, I suck up to the Jews.
I show no bias in favor of the Palestinians by opposing mass murder and foreign occupation. I attacked the Palestinians for having a muslim fanatical imperialist mentality, actually. I dislike both Hamas, have a negative view about the fanaticism of Muslims in general, and dislike Israel, have a negative view of Jewish fanaticism in general. I am very much willing to condemn different factions. I complained about historical nazis, I complained about the groups I mentioned, I oppose those with a pushover mentality and I oppose those who are fanatical violent racist supremacists for foreign groups too. Or even for their own.
Its like there is a choice outside of this scumbag behavior that one can choose.
Just cause you support genocide and mass violence in favor of the Jews, don't mistake your own indecency for those of others.
You really are a non Jew who favors Jewish supremacy and mass murder in Israel. Own for it. Now as for why you are sucking up to Jewish extremism, is part of your antiwestern agenda, since the western establishment pushes the same racism against natives and unhinged racism in favor of the Jews as you do. You are willing to support mass murder and Jewish ultranationalism for social status within circles that Jewish supremacy has some valiance like the rationalists.
In any case your racist double standards and hypocricy betrays your lack of philosophical sophistication.
What I am saying is that I prefer the outcome of Israeli dominion and pacification of the contested territories, and I don't particularly care about how they go about it. I do not think violence is anti-sacred and verboten, it's just as fungible as most things are as far as I'm concerned. Tribalism? If you deny that Jews, even those in Israel, have contributed much more to the globe than all their neighbors put together, then sure, you can abuse the term.
Is that you being the westernized Indian? Supporting mass murder as something to not care about and push aside? Maybe like the Jewish migrants in Palestine, you will support this logic against the natives of the western country you will live in. Seems you are quite willing to support colonialism, if it serves your interest.
Masss murder and ultranationalists who abuse the human rights of others winning is worth it because reasons, is not a valid argument.
If you deny that Jews, even those in Israel, have contributed much more to the globe than all their neighbors put together, then sure, you can abuse the term.
The Germans hold records of patents per capita in europe and the Japanese were also much more succdessful than other Asians. And the British contributed much more to humanity than India in modernity. Is mass murder in favor of ethnic domination of these countries good then? Should the British have pacified India harder? What kind of abuse of logic is this?
Israel will still be standing without committing atrocities against the Palestinians. You have never come close to making the work to justify your claims in favor of mass murder.
I am glad you exposed how you and others here are Jewish supremacists. Oh the crocodile tears spent about certain forms of extremism when a different one is the most common one instead.
And your way of thinking would justify a smarter group going around the globe murdering the natives and replacing them everywhere, while promoting hardcore fertility for themselves.
All the liberal ideology you aligned with is hollow. You know what you support aligns more with, right?
It is insane to support mass murder of Palestinians because you consider Jews superior.
While, I think HBD is true, and the anti HBD ers want to silence it so they can get away with being racists under the "overepresentation is due to oppression" narrative, it does seem that when it comes to the Jews in particular we do have HBD leading to the most vile extremism of you and others supporting mass murder which is a very real danger that has materialized.
Although, I think a narrative with HBD is partly to blame and the general ideology of Jewish superiority and they can do no wrong is also directly related. The narrative that connects human biological difference with the right to destroy other groups because yours is superior does deserve to be a taboo. I still am against antiHBDism ideology and the narrative it connects with, but a certain ideology related with HBD should also be kept down.
Belisarius
.
7mo ago
So you are interested in enough mass murder so Palestinians will accept anything Jews do and will never even think of attempting to start a battle with the other side.
I am pretty sure you are pointing trivialities and it is the genocide you support as a solution that is important and not the fact that it leads to the defeat of your enemy like you pretend.
Israel has killed far more Palestinians than otherwise. Even just recently. Also Hamas =/ the totality of Palestinian faction even if key to it.
Israel should probably show a bit more concern for civilian casualties, but it’s not taking preemptive strikes against a music festival.
The way you are framing it is downplayment to the extreme.
Enough with the apologia for Israeli warcrimes. I don't think it is an accident that the spaces that promote this including IDW has rhetoric that is upvoted about how Jews are superior. Which we see here as well people write this nonsense and promote the argument of Jews being superior to non Jews.
Israel unmoored from the threat of backlash, would probably have done ever worse, just like so many zionists advocate. And like they have done in the past. There is a real threat of mass murderous ethnic cleansing lying over the Palestinians right now. There is also a lot of rhetoric and an atmosphere created that makes attrocities all that more likely because of the complicity of gatekeepers of discourse.
Lest we forget that Hamas has not existed always in this conflict and the start of it is Jewish murderous conquest and ethnic cleansing of which terrorism played a key role.
This conflict isn't really all that debatable in all its facets. It is a fact that both Hamas and Israel (and those willing to support it unconditional) are fanatical extreme regimes. Also, part of their badness has to do with their global badness. Their fanaticism isn't only a problem for the location of palestine, but their ideology is vile, predatory, and disrespectful of others rights with a more global reach.
One under the banner of Islam, and with elements of anti western (and anti other non muslim, including Christians but other groups too), and the other with the symbol of star of david, with also anti western, obviously anti-christian but also anti Muslim element. And both quite capable of being anti-X other groups in favor of the domination of their own tribe.
Please pay at least half attention of thinking of the problems of the red-black shit solution and massive wealth redistribuion and revolution.
Evidently that way of thinking leads to less wealth creation and other huge problems to boot.
So I reject your framing all trying to solve the problem you focus upon in exclusion of all others.
I would say in regards to that, if rent seeking is bad, you don't promote it to society in general. Your mentality is wrong.
And if being owner is good, it might play a role in encouraging wealth creation. I think for other reasons that are more important about power concentration we should break monopolies like FAANG and try to limit the power of corporate lobbies to corrupt politics.
This applies even to weapon manufacturers who are actually IIRC the biggest donors to think tanks. And people part of neocon warmongering groups, tend to get positions in said corporations.
Corporate America has been corrupted by private/public partnership and march in institutions and powerful ethnic and ideological leftist lobbies. Like the ADL which its control over advertisers. Over 90% of jobs since BLM have gone to non whites in S and P 100 according to Bloomberg.
IMO the solution is to outright ban and start criminal investigations for anything that fits for some of this super NGOs deep state monstrocities. And also seperate super corporations like blackrock in a million pieces while also investigating any attempts for them to impose totaltiarianism and enforce ideological conformity of far left type as something criminal.
Plutocracy in combination of cultural totalitarian far leftism and ethnic supremacy for groups associeted with the left, is like some kind of chimera that is rather bad.
The plutocracy can NOT do as they want but should be constrained by principles and forced to be more evenhanded in their hiring decisions over following ideological dictates.
Ideally you want a society that people try to create wealth, and even managers and owner of wealth can play a productive role by doing so effectively. This should be seperated from the mentality that powerful whether goverment or rich, or specific classes can do no wrong. A mentality that they should be constrained by strict adherence in principle needs to be enshrined and requires certain form of punishment for those who break it.
Personally, I have a much greater beef with the rich guy who uses his millions to promote evil causes over the guy sitting on them and enjoying his wealth.
Nevertheless, one leftist critique that the left has done but hasn't really effectively opposed team totalitarian consolidation of our private public partnership age, has been about the possibility of any tendency of capital to accumulate power and leading to monopoly. The leftist solution of the more radical sort or what they do in practice which is to join them and focus on promoting redistribution in favor of the left's favorite groups and calling this as Kendi has as anticapitalist, is really not a good solution.
But there might be value in restrictions limiting the growth of big capital and promoting smaller bussiness and the middle class as the way forward. Going too far in restrictive area can kill the golden goose of capitalism, but yeah I see the value of antirust, and trying to not less an arrogant plutocracy do as they want. The bedrock and what countries should primarily be run in favor of is the middle class family. While other social classes also have their place in society, so I am not adopting a framing like the marxist who thinks other classes should be eliminated in favor of the working class.
We should advantage the middle class voter, tax payer, family as a good, but we shouldn't try to mistreat the other ones.
Here are some other ideas:
-
Punish white collar crime, the Sam Bankman Fried types much more strictly. The point should be punishment to deter them.
-
I already advocated it but start treating some of the lobbying we see from these types as a crime, and as corruption, treason, etc.
-
Start to treat these types imposing their extreme ideology on society as a crime too.
-
Try to remove political commissars from institutions (The ADL has a chapter in Microsoft, Google, Facebook) and to promote both more pluralism but an overton window with restrictions too. Both the current plutocrats and people who marched in goverment institutions are too much on the political commissar front. The overton window should be more even handed and not prejudiced for left wing demographics.
-
To that end, both break up such mega corporations and FORCE public platforms to allow competition. With massive fines. Things like Substack, Gab, etc. Regulate to allow pluralism. This is in line with the much forgotten theory of democracy that dissent including extremists opposing each other leads to a more moderate end. Personally, I still favor some gatekeeping but of a more evenhanded nature. More pluralism against the prejudices of the powerful types of our society would be a good thing.
-
AA policies of plutocrats and the goverment which have obviously become rather excessive should not only be seen as racist, but an abuse of power. The issue of powerful using their power for their own ideology at expense of society. This goes contra to the rationalist alignment with them which in case of Scott Siskind let him even promoting George Soros in certain instances as a good. Anyway, large fines, prosecutions should be the recipe.
I don't think someone who is rich, or managed to capture a position of the bureocracy should do just what he wants because he has that position. Principle should rule over petty and immoral desires of powerful men. Of course this still requires men of principle to enforce this ideal.
Ban AA and start prosecutions against those who do it and allow/encourage lawsuits for those trying to enforce it through the backdoor. It goes without saying that those who exercise the dastardly proffession of being an enforcer of "diversity" who engages in immoral rent and parasitism, should actually engage in an honest job.
- Globalism relates to the monopolization of power. An alternative should be governments encouraging local analogues to useful services and promoting innovation. So rather than Google and Americans who control google and have the ideology they do having enormous world influence, if large blocks created their own search engine, play store, etc, etc, this would limit Google's reach. This also has something to do with your point about sitting on assets since there is a difference with a mega rich super corporation and smaller ones which don't have said opportunity. This can also compensate for some of other problems I mention. If you can't remove the political comisars from Google, you can try to limit the rich of Google (and others) and promote alternatives. Practically, this would not lead to richer and more competent international companies disappearing, nor end of globalismJust make it a less totalizing force. Ideally we have less powerful and less malevolent global companies.
Fundamentally, maybe I don't know about Samsung having negative influence in politics of Korea, but I don't have that much to complain about companies like Sony, Samsung, etc. So if they were less ideological companies like google would be less offensive but there is something to say about the enormous power of Apple, Google, Amazon that is simply too much.
- Obviously mass migration empowers the plutocrats who gain cheap labor, are able to offer less to locals, and get to combine their effort with authoritarian far leftists who criminalize dissent. So restricting it is a good idea. It also combines with the idea that only profit and the values of plutocrat matter. When capitalism should compromise with the promotion of other things rather than society just serving mammon. Some of these values can be nationalism which also should compromise with respecting the rights of other nations and not seeking to conquer everyone else. Another value can be international justice which goes against the interest of weapon manufacturers and corrupt "nation builders".
There is an inherent strong value to strong communities which requires rootedness, continuity, and promotion of culture related to religion, ethnic identity. So maximizing wealth creation should not be ideal and there should be a compromise that have people for example go to church in mornings, or enjoy weekends.
The things that can elevate man outside of the capitalist process tend to be related to things of a more conservative and Lindy nature.
- To that end, promote good art, architecture, buildings that can last a long time and be admired by future generations. Society should build beauty and promote arts. Promote the kind of art that have tended to do this which hasn't been rap, modern art, more brutalist type of architecture. We need a culture of patronage of that and for goverment to encourage it with funding, regulation, and what kind of art it teaches in schools.
The rich who instead of giving his money for malevolent far left NGO, builds awesome cathedrals for example, or promotes paintings like Michelangelo's frescoes, deserves praise for making the world a better place. There is also of course more to just supporting beauty like certain technological innovation and wealth creation which should be more rooted to continuing the splendors of our ancestors creations.
This can be adjusted to an extend for different societies. World is too boring if everyone is the same. Chinese should promote more traditional type of their architecture. Arabs, the same. And so on.
And yes, some selfish motive like trying to have comfort for you and your family is going to motivate more people to gain wealth than patronage to build cathedrals, creating great work of arts that are actually admirable unlike abstract art and architecture, etc. But wealth used for good causes. Actually encouraging this might lead to more of the wealthy spending their money, because now there would be more things of worth to do so.
And also, if you are a rich guy who has done so, putting your name somewhere is well worth it. But name, not advertisement. Putting something like the symbol of Pepsi near a magnificient statue is disgusting and defiling. A plague of the patron but no tacky advertisement.
- Going too far with taxation can ruin societies, but there is some value to progressive taxation if you don't overdo it. Reject things like flat taxes. There is also a value in again not overdoing it (because owning and inhering wealth it is an incentive for wealth creation), but having a tax system that focuses more on taxing rent than wealth creation. But even more importantly, one should be pragmatic and not rigid. Better to exclude anyone from this process who think that communism is at all an alternative that we should give another shot. If things you try and succeed in doing actually don't work well, you try to understand why and not repeat the process. A certain pragmatism and humility are good. Humility should not lead to complete inaction however.
This is just excuse for any form of bad behavior showing motivated reasoning.
There is obviously a big difference with promoting people who are seen as Satanists with being a more traditionalist figure.
If Zelensky managed to avoid war while being more conciliatory towards the Russians most of the people complaining today about him would ignore him. Generally, you must be a massive prick to get plenty of the online right to hate on you. And especially a massive prick in a manner that offends right wingers. Even during the war he could have done certain things differently and been more likeable that is certainly the case.
The number of rightists who will hate any figure just for their ethnicity no matter what they do is rather small. There is a bigger number of people who will excuse any form of bad behavior because of the ethnicity of the person involved and pretend rightists are just full of blind prejudice.
Politicians and influential people who in any way pander even to some extend to the desires of rightists end up with rightists liking them more. Including some of the far right crowd. Suspicions exist for valid reasons. This is the big issue among all the people whining about rightists haters and bigots. They are the hateful ones actually and their complaining is nonsensical. Do you and the people you whine of being unfortunate targets of excessive hatred, ever try to be friendly to at least some of the people you complain about? Of course not.
You can choose to hate on the rightists and excuse pandering to who Zelensky panders towards but then don't complain when they hate back. You aren't owed nor deserve unconditional support.
In the case of Zelensky, the man banned political parties, betrayed the promises he was elected for, shelled civilian areas and let loose war criminal groups and will not allow elections in 2024. Moreover by making his country a thrall to the extreme agendas of factions of western establishment he is doing his country a great evil.
I would have hoped people would have realized by now that it matters who you put in charge in key institutions and it does change the trajectory of a country. The model of these far left circles has self negation of national identity, that is cultural genocide, self hatred, mass migration and promotion of all sorts of far left pathologies which include in the mix discrimination against the natives, hate speech laws, and promotion of LGBT ideology and preferential treatment for them.
Choosing to do this because it is a desperate situation is a stupid choice, but also it downplays Zelensky own complicity.
This reminds me of the assignments to write an essay that reddit mods would give people. I am not going to do that. If you have anything to reply to the points already made, which I spent time to articulate my perspective with various issues then I might reply to that. If you are unable to do so, for whatever reason, including you not understanding them, thinking that they are unclear, or because you do not want to address the argument, that would be fine. But you shouldn't have asked for more. It isn't fine if you are trying to promote "I don't understand you" as an attack, but I am not really going to spend more time over it.
Please respect the time and effort spent by the people you are discussing with here and stop asking me to write significantly more so I make points that you would supposedly find sufficiently understandable to address.
You up the ante in attacking white women in trying to censor negative criticism of black women. You should stop acting as if you are a mod for a reddit sub and trying to enforce left wing ideology on everyone. Unattractive is not equivalent to calling a group disgustingly fat which is more inflammatory. Plus, I won't interpret you choosing that rhetoric as just being a case of providing an example. It seems to me that you are deliberately want to get away with calling white women as disgustingly fat.
It is actually the case that white women are more attractive than black women. Less obese too. So it can't be applied to white women which aren't seen as unattractive.
Black women tend to be rated as less attractive than others.
More options
Context Copy link