Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.
In this episode, we talk about white nationalism.
Participants: Yassine, Walt Bismarck, TracingWoodgrains.
Links:
Why I'm no longer a White Nationalist (The Walt Right)
The Virulently Unapologetic Racism of "Anti-Racism" (Yassine Meskhout)
Hajnal Line (Wikipedia)
Fall In Line Parody Song (Walt Bismarck)
Richard Spencer's post-Charlottesville tirade (Twitter)
The Metapolitics of Black-White Conflict (The Walt Right)
America Has Black Nationalism, Not Balkanization (Richard Hanania)
Recorded 2024-04-13 | Uploaded 2024-04-14
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'll comment on just one specific point that Walt/Yassine make vis-a-vis Black crime.
Yassine asks - what reason is there (other than just simian hatred of the racial outgroup) to advocate for White interests specifically? As he correctly points out - the end state that Walt wants (a race-blind justice system) doesn't obviously require any appeal to White identity.
He's not quite right - as Walt points out, you can't just do race-blindness without addressing the inevitable racial disparity.
But this still doesn't get us to White Identarianism - the (truthful) explanation for Black crime is simply HBD: Black people commit more crimes because of their genetics.
Walt claims that telling the truth would be politically infeasible. This isn't crazy - there's a reason why HBD isn't discussed in the mainstream (and why it's now called "HBD" instead of a more descriptive term like "racialism")
But to be blunt, Walt's proposal of reparations with strings attatched sounds even more insane and unlikely to work. He understands this won't actually make Blacks happy (very soon all the disparities will re-emerge), but he hopes this will catalyse some kind of spiritual awakening amongst Whites, as now instead of abstract differentials in crime rates, the harm caused by Blacks would be concretely manifested as the yearly "Reparation Tax". Aside from the fact that Affirmative Action basically does this already (and hasn't helped reduce tensions), this just sounds too complex to work (There's a lot of moving parts, and each step of reasoning is only sort-of plausible)
So do we conclude Whites should logically just be "race-realist but not racist"? The problem is that even if we could magically snap our fingers to get to Walt's end-goal - this would still be anti-White.
They both talk about being "harsh on crime" as though this just means we turn up a dial that puts more criminals (a disproportionate amount of whom are Black) into prison. But in practice, enacting any such policy basically has to make general society a lower trust (i.e. worse) place to live in. For some specific examples:
The fact that "inner city" schools have to include this ugly protection with their vending machines
In France, FGM has become a problem To quote the article:
In other words, by simply having Africans exist in France (and adopting an anti-racist ideology), the native French population must now have their young daughters undergo an uncomfortable, embarassing check-up for FGM, despite the fact that this literally never happens for them (I know this is a non-US context, but I think it illustrates the general point quite well)
Now you could reasonably point out that every example I gave is pretty trivial - I mean it's not that hard to lock your bicycle, I doubt the FGM-check is invasive, and a slightly uglified vending machine still produces the same snacks. But all of these little things add up, to make the environment around you feel generally crappy and prison-like, and maybe more importantly, to make you feel worse about yourself (the vending machine protector, the FGM check-up, the bike lock - they're all there because a generic person, like you, cannot be trusted not to do a smash-and-grab, mutilate your daughter, or steal a bike)
To be clear - everything I said only proves that even race-blind policies (as opposed to segregation, a different justice system for different races, ethnic cleansing, etc) would be anti-White. I haven't said anything on what would be moral (even if you're a White Identarian, the interests of Whites wouldn't be the only thing you judge morality on)
It's odd that they go round and round on how white identity would sell an anti-crime agenda. It might not on a government level, but there are ways it could work on an individual.
Walt could be clear that being in a subculture where the details and demographics of crime are discussed makes people want to stay in low-crime neighborhoods and be pretty good at predicting which neighborhoods are low-crime. Whether you live in an implicitly white suburb (quite common) or an explicitly white country (the supposed goal of WN), this may be an expression of tribal identity that makes you safer.
There's an issue with white flight, in that it concentrates crime and makes white people feel less responsible for the costs of governing areas they don't want to live in, which includes policing. Leaving the ghetto and then running it as a police state would be an example of the unpleasantness you describe. Imprisoning more people and for longer sentences is certainly the way to get the antisocial fraction out of the way of everyone else.
The cyclical pattern of crime and enforcement has existed about as long as anti-racist narratives have been dominant. We can count the 2010s trough in crime rates as a sort of completing of the cycle, with recent years repeating the mistakes of the 1960s. (Walt mentions in the podcast that it goes back earlier, so likely a reference to Reconstruction and the subsequent "nadir of American race relations.")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link