This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You know I’ve been waiting for a good time to talk about this, but I am usually hesitant because by now these discussions don’t ever lead anywhere and no one’s opinion is ever changed in any meaningful way, but I guess now is as good a time as ever.
At one point I would have considered myself a white nationalist, although only in the way a nineteen-year-old university student would consider themselves a Marxist. Just as I was reaching my twenties I got caught up in the counter-cultural alt-right sphere in 2016, and adopted many of the worldviews that were congruent with the political atmosphere of the time, including Ultra-nationalism, Antisemitism, and extreme social conservatism.
It is important to note that one does not become an ultranationalist following a genuine reading of Evola but comes about almost exclusively as a reaction to the failures, dishonesty, and excesses of modern progressivism. It is almost a meme at this point to talk about Anti-white propaganda that is constantly espoused from the left and influences their legislative policies and cultural creations in every aspect of society. It is difficult to ignore this when every social message from every institution is categorically opposed to your very existence in a very genuine way. It is not ironic or subtle, and it is very difficult to take criticism of racial prejudice seriously when the culture at large only considers discrimination legitimate when against ‘approved’ groups.
This is coupled with a domestic policy that also reflects those values, and actively promotes immigration programs that are intrinsically designed to weaken the amount of social and economic power that the majority holds. It is not fallacious to say that western governments are actively supporting causes and ideologies that are inherently anti-white. It is always in the back of people’s minds that their societies have gotten successively worse over the last twenty years and in the minds of the radical right this is correlated with the rise of multiculturalism. We have been so ingrained with the idea that it is morally wrong to even* conceive* of a nation strictly composed of a white majority that It is no surprise that it leads to strong political reactions such as white nationalism.
While I could go on infinitely about the failures of modern liberalism, the point of this thread chain is about why white nationalism is not a viable solution to the greater social trends we are currently seeing, or specifically why I became disillusioned with white nationalism.
The greatest problem I had with entire community is one of unspoken beliefs. Much like Marxists (who have legitimate grievances with neo-liberal capitalism, ones that they are correct in pointing out can not last without complete disaster), they hold beliefs internally that are completely malevolent. White nationalism is centered on a goal of a homogeneous nation that is composed of an ethnically white majority. While I do not consider this inherently immoral (much like how I wouldn’t consider nation such as Japan, India, or China's homogeneity as immoral), the reality is that due to modern immigration policies over the last thirty years, western nations hold a large number of visible minorities. Underneath many of the public facades of ultra-nationalists there lies a reality that is invisible under the surface. Ask a white nationalist what they would do to minorities who would refuse to leave the nations in which they have built a foundation for the future, and they will give you ambiguous solutions that never really sound satisfying to either you or them. They will deny this to no end, but If given complete political authority, they would do many of the things that leftists would accuse them of doing. In order to reach their preferred racial demographic goals, they would have no qualms in deporting, imprisoning, and ultimately murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions of people given the opportunity. Much like the far left in which they criticize, their public personas do not actually reflect the values in which they hold in their hearts, and the practical reality of their governance would result in a large amount of innocent bloodshed, which I do consider immoral.
White nationalism does not have an adequate plan for the future and their proposed solutions to problems will not simply vanish if given political control. Since I have explained that white nationalists come about primarily as a reaction to the excess of progressive ideology, they don’t really have a thought-out plan for the future, only the destruction of what is currently politically popular. Destroying a current political establishment, and actually governing are two completely different things, and they are often in sharp contrast with one another. It would not surprise me if they achieved political power that it would not last particularly long, because the modern world does not share the political realities of the interwar period. They seem to have this idea that the only thing stopping western nations from their previous economic and technological superiority is simply the racial makeup of the country. Now while it can be strongly argued that the social benefits of homogeneity would lead to better educational and economic outcomes, by no means is this guaranteed. Modern nation states are in constant competition with one another in all kinds of ways that are not obvious on the surface. They seem to have this opinion regarding almost all facets of society, that simply making western nations homogeneous will solve almost all of their political problems. This is not apparent to me. There are many serious issues that demographics don’t seem to solve. The birthrate for example, would seemingly skyrocket the moment western nations are ethnically homogeneous, never stopping to notice that these problems are worst within nations that are ethnically homogeneous, such as China, Korea, or Japan. The modern world has become far too complicated for such simple solutions, and in many ways White nationalist’s delusional world is only a reality within their minds.
This is not to say that modern liberal democracy is inherently better, as I would prefer almost anything to what we currently have. I believe modern progressivism to be a political and cultural dead end, and one that white nationalists correctly diagnose as being inevitable to die, either due to political revolt or societal collapse, given a long enough time frame. The dissident right has emerged as an evolution to this type of ideology and is a little more realistic in their goals and slightly more aware of the moral problems that come about as a result. White nationalism is an equal dead end, at least the fantasy of it that the adherents hold to in their heads.
This seems to me a quite bad refutation of white nationalism. The meat of your objection is that wignats would have to use violence to achieve their policy goals, but apparently you've never had a frustrating conversation with a libertarian. That's true for every political movement ever. Whether we are talking about ethnic cleansing of hispanics or civil rights laws for blacks or motor vehicle registration for your SUV, the enforcement of policy ultimately rests on an escalating sequence of consequences that end in non-compliants being gunned down by police in the street.
Yes, making an ethnostate would require reprisals on people who don't want to obey. This is equally true of patrolling borders. China, Korea, and Japan are not "naturally" homogenous today. They are homogenous because they have continued to enforce a threat of violence against border crossers who do not meet their preferences.
This post could be rewritten to condemn any political movement that is not in power, save ancaps.
I disagree. My objection is not that they would use violence to achieve their goals, but that mass violence is *inherent *to their political goals. I understand violence is necessary for any political power to hold on to their positions of authority, but it's not simply a matter of political subjugation.
The consequences for non-whites who subjugate themselves to a ruling class of White Nationalists would be identical to those who don't, because it is not their consent that is contentious, but their existence itself. The use of violence is therefore used not as a contingency for non-compliance, but as a tool used towards those who don't have the desired characteristics. There would not be 'reprisals,' because that would imply causation.
Yes, I agree, and I would prefer the West to have the same type of policies, but the reality is that they don't. The question now remains, how you would reverse the effects of mass immigration without the overwhelming use of political violence? Comparing the use of force for the displacement or extermination of millions of ethnic minorities to registering your SUV is extremely disingenuous.
It's not their existence that is contentious, it is their location. They are free to exist elsewhere, and if they choose to stay they can be forcibly removed, as Pakistan deported hundreds of thousands of Afghans. It's absurd to say that the very existence of those Afghans is in contention, it is their location that is the problem and it was their location, not existence, that was corrected.
I particularly hate this use of "existence." It's manipulative and dishonest.
Yes, in theory, but In practice that's nearly identical. I find the distinction between existence/location to be marginal at best. Just in the same way I don't wish for all mice to be eradicated off the earth, I would kill all of them that are in my house, for the very same reason that I don't like their location.
Exactly my point. Think about the practical implementation of these policies. Force them where and how? Tell them all to pack their bags? Send them to other nations that don't want them? What if these nations refuse to take them in? What if these minorities refuse under all circumstances? What about the large proportion of minorities that are second or third generation immigrants who do not have a place to go if displaced? What starts out simple in theory quickly becomes murderous in practice.
Probably back over the Mexican border, since the vast majority of them came in through that avenue. As for how, the same way the state does everything else: with the threat of uniformed men with guns.
That would be first, and easiest, solution and was actually proposed by a Republican candidate for President in my lifetime. He referred to it as self-deportation.
Yes, exactly.
We lean on them, the same way we do to get our way all the way around the world in a thousand different ways. Starting with sanctions, probably, or withholding of aid. Or we simply move the people across the border and present it as a fait accompli.
It depends on how intermixed they are, first of all, but anyone who has been ethnically distinct for three generations in America gets little sympathy from me and can be deported to where their grandfathers came from.
You keep raising these logistical issues as if they are the moral issues but they simply aren't. Removing them is a logistical issue, and it can be resolved using all of the regular tools we already have, once the decision has been made to do so.
I don't get the reticence. How has any state gotten anything accomplished at any time in history? By deciding to do it and marshalling their resources to the task. This is no different.
Not to tread old ground here, but I once again find myself curious about the tricky edge case of the old-stock American black.
(I'll take the former Georgia colonial territory circa the 1770s if you're offering it though.)
Not that the partition of India was clean and easy, but we're living in a world where such a partition happened last century. The model is there, so mostly what I'm bemoaning is a lack of imagination.
From the (Mississippi) river to the sea*?
*Ocean
More options
Context Copy link
Is that even an edge case? Seems like a pretty central example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link