site banner
ymeskhout  15d ago (text post)   4002 thread views

The Bailey Podcast E036: White Right

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

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So I read the "The Metapolitics..." article that is linked and while I can agree with its arguments largely, I found this part:

But when a white person has kids with a black person the kids will almost always see themselves as black. This isn’t “the cultural legacy of the One Drop Rule,” it’s the obvious fact that black people have much more dominant genes than everyone else.

...which strikes me as kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

The obvious reason those kids will see themselves as black is that the Spanish/Hispanic (and, I guess, French/Francophone) cultural sphere, unlike the North American Anglo-Saxon one, includes the concepts of mestizo and mulatto, and accordingly lacks the legal concept of the white race as the separate and dominant racial group, which originates from Virginia in the late 17th Century, as far as I know. It has everything to do with the cultural legacy of the One Drop Rule. Those kids, if born in Britain, France or Spain etc., will not see themselves as nonwhite, because their societies lack the concept of whiteness as an identity.

That article confused me. It feels like it was written from an alternate reality.

The GOP establishment argued in its famous “postmortem” that Republicans could never win enough Hispanics to triumph nationally unless they moderated on immigration, while Tea Party stalwarts and crypto-WNs claimed Latinos would never be conservative, and would just flood the country like Orcs voting for more handouts at the expense of the beleaguered white middle class, who wouldn’t have the numbers to electorally defend themselves. 10 years later it seems all of these factions were comically wrong in their predictions.

No they weren't. Biden won the Hispanic vote by 20+ points as did Clinton.

He's being really smug about this even though he was factually wrong and anyone can easily check it in seconds.

And Trump is ahead on Hispanics right now. Pledge to make immigration easier and he'd be even more ahead than he currently is.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Given that most Hispanic voters are from places like Mexico and Puerto Rico, and the new migrants are from places like Ecuador and El Salvador, there isn't good evidence that they particularly want those people coming in. Intra-Hispanic racism is very strong, likely stronger than anti-Irish/Italian sentiment ever was in America. It is a big mistake to imagine that non-whites abide by anything similar to the thought processes that govern whites, particularly urban liberal whites who dominate the discourse.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats