domain:betonit.substack.com
Can't even begin to respond to how hateful this message is.
If you read more carefully, you'd realize I was mocking the message and saying it was wrong.
The Online Right is small and powerless
Not true. Google Marko Elez.
So, again, let's start with the heart of the issue: why does the concept of white solidarity make you uncomfortable?
It doesn't. Nothing in the post was directed against white solidarity, which I have no problem with.
Yeah that was what reminded me of the subject.
Genuine applause for taking one for the team. I protest your ban as unjust silencing for stating true facts about the world, with your only crime being that your blade was too sharp and well honed. I stand with you in solidarity. Omnes pro uno.
You're right that Auron does not give an alternative plan to co-opt EHC, but do you have one?
No more Trump, RFK, Hulk Hogan, or prayer breakfasts.
Notice how you didn't dispute my point that Trump, RFK, Hulk Hogan, and prayer breakfasts alienate EHC. You know it does. You're correct that Trump's a good (as in, good at winning elections) politician. If your priority is winning elections by appealing to the unwashed masses, congrats, it worked. Don't turn around and complain that EHC don't want to vote for your party when you did nothing to appeal to them.
Yes, Toruk is mixed I think, so any racial solidarity movement would exclude him
I'm a mischling, which "soft WN" is full of.(BAP, Yarvin, etc.)
Probably the reason he is obsessed with white identitarians is not that they are currently powerful, but that they are up-and-coming
Yep.
Auron's just talking past him. He says "the institutions must be dismantled and replaced from the ground up with organizations that reject wokeness and the root ideology of universal material equality" and doesn't address the issue that you can't do that without human capital.
Any right-winger acting like him would be instabanned
Extremely not true. I've had many discussions with MAGA folks here that degenerate to them doing little more than making a series of personal attacks, I report it, and then nothing happens. Making personal attacks against other people here is far worse than vaguely shaking one's fist at broad political movements, which was what AlexanderTurok did here. Again, I ask as to what exactly was the banworthy part of his post? What specific sentences were the issue that if uttered by right-leaning people ought to similarly catch a warning or a ban in the moderators' eyes?
Doing a similar standard of job for 30% of the price, or even doing the same job to an 80% standard for 30% of the price for almost all jobs is a very valid component to the merits of an individual for a job. Microsoft choosing to recognise and reward this doesn't reflect badly on either them or the person doing the job for cheap, the only person to boo here is the person who wants to extract economic rents by artificially restricting competition.
And you will encounter no politics at all during, say, Black History Month?
If you attend some Black History Month event, of course.
If you're just hanging out with your black friends, no. Lots of black people think the month thing is silly.
I expect non-Hajnali 'whites' to basically end up as an underclass, so it is what it is I guess.
That would be a surprise to the 40 million or so Irish Americans.
This isn't even specific to the right.
Almost nothing is specific to any one group, especially when we're dealing with groups as broad as "right" and "left", but I do think it's ugly and getting uglier on the right.
And it's broader than racism. For instance, I'm closer to Trace's side than I am to Auron's in this exchange, and so I don't want our politics to go down the path Trace is arguing against.
The statement "happened to get away with it" seems like it's doing a lot of work here. My entire point is the right-leaning posters seem to "get away with it" quite regularly in ways that functionally give them a different set of rules.
Terrible ban. We get stuff posted here of a similar level of snarling, but pointed at the left, and it regularly doesn't catch these types of bans.
Which of his statements was actually even worthy of the ban here?
Nice strawman. But even the most hardcore HBD believers would accept that the worst whites are likely worse in some aspects than the best non-whites.
I have seen it argued on multiple occasions right here on the Motte that racial background is the "most dispositive" factor in determining human behavior. That is to say that a person's race will tell you more about how they are likely to behave than whether they are male or female, young or old, married or single, rich or poor, urban or rural, republican or democrat, etc...
By extension wether a man is black or white must matter more than whether they are an aged Supreme Court Judge or a Twenty-something meth head. You may claim that the Motte is not representative of the HBD movement or that when users here say things like "most dispositive" or "predictive" they don't actually mean it literally, but it's not a strawman.
Here’s an idea: Just fucking take it. Argue whatever the hypothetical is. Or don’t. But don’t censor. You are among friends here, right-winger. You don’t need to use the mods to crush your political opposition. You have your numbers, your downvotes (Turok is consistently downvoted even for neutral comments, which btw already censors him). This burning hatred for any left-of center commenter is embarassing.
I'm not saying what you're saying doesn't exist, but I haven't really noticed it that much on this site. Maybe my radar just isn't attuned to that sort of thing. Can you point me to some examples you think demonstrate that? The best example I could think of this is Curtis Yarvin whose prose is meandering and often difficult to parse, but he doesn't post publicly on this site that I know of.
I don't see how Turok would really pattern-match to that sort of problem in this specific post.
It's only poison for disproportionate economic growth of your country relative to the other countries of the world. It's poison for a selfish country level view of the planet yes, but that is not a bad thing; much like how pesticide is poison for aphids but is very much a good thing. If you support policies that lead to long term global growth instead of merely localized growth then this laissez faire approach isn't bad at all, in fact it's the fastest way to get global GDP growing as fast as possible.
They have effectively beaten NATO in a conventional land war. They are fighting an enemy in which every operation is run by NATO, the equptment is NATO, thousands of NATO mercs are running things on the ground.
While Israel and the US can't take an area the size of a municipality in Gaza against enemies with no resources Russia took the area the size of Denmark in a week against an enemy with 3x larger force.
I can't speak for him, but I think that in general the particular aversion to white solidarity comes from the understanding that ingroup preference necessarily induces outgroup hostility; it is impossible to love your neighbor without (at least somewhat) hating the outsider. Considering that whites are by far the most dangerous race on earth, with a proven track record of BTFOing everyone else, it's completely reasonable for white solidarity to be seen as more of a threat than other races' ingroup preferences; if you lived next door to an 800-pound gorilla, you wouldn't want to give it any ideas about how hungry he is and how tasty you look.
I would rather have no racial politics at all.
How do right-wingers like Auron think about them?
Auron MacIntyre may admittedly not be the best example. But, simply put, MacIntyre and those adjacent to the Online Right/Dissident Right see immigration and nationalism through a more blood and soil framework than most Trump voters, who are happy to hang out with their Hispanics friends and actually do see them as real Americans. As for gays, they've adopted a strict "no compromise" policy that I don't think is popular IRL. Lots of talk about "degeneracy" and "subversion", with numerous Jewish references.
In my view, there's no viable political project that can emerge out of this, at least not on a national scale. But maybe that's the point; right-wingers who are sincere white nationalists (or close enough to that ideology) need to build their own small communities and try to insulate themselves and their children as much as possible from America.
Anyone remember that whole "HBD" thing? You don't hear much about it anymore. It makes sense. The new narrative on the Online Right is that there's a huge mass of white men without jobs who have no choice but to inject fentanyl because of "the border" and free trade sending the factories to China. The unemployment rate is only low because these people are so dispirited that they've given up looking for work. We need to drastically remake our economy to help these unfortunates, who are incapable of helping themselves. This worldview would seem to conflict with HBD theories. Indeed, one would have to conclude that whites are an inferior race. Guatemalans in their "third-world s***hole" don't just sit around despairing, they cross multiple borders and look for work in a country where they can't even speak the language, while white men who got laid off in their rust-belt factory towns twiddle their thumbs and inject fentanyl, unable to compete with said Guatemalans. They see whites like people have long seen the American Indians, a "noble" race who ought to "own" the country but who are ill-equipped to deal with the evils of modernity that more advanced peoples have introduced like liquor or fentanyl.[1] But where this worldview makes some sense in the case of the Indians, it is utterly nonsensical to apply it to whites, who all the statistics show have higher incomes, higher IQs, higher educational attainment, and lower unemployment. Even opioid overdose deaths, initially a "white" issue, are now highest for blacks and American Indians, as with most social problems. (Whites do die at higher rates than Hispanics or Asians.) Labor force participation rates have indeed declined, mostly because there are more students and retirees. 89.2% of men aged 25-54 are in the labor force, a figure that is likely higher for whites, and the 11% who aren't include students, prisoners, stay-at-home dads, and those who can't work because of legit disabilities.
The Online Right has often been compared to the woke left. The woke black looks at his race, disproportionately poor, uneducated, and working low-skill jobs, and demands affirmative action so that more blacks can work in medicine, law, business, and politics. The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain. Is that really what you want your political ideology to be?
Now, you may be asking, "what about the real unemployed drug addicts?" For one, this is a disproportionately non-white group. One study found that blacks are 3.5 times more likely to ever be homeless in their lifetimes than whites, while Hispanics are 1.7 times more likely. Still, while not as common as some of you think, they do exist. Tariffs aren't going to help them. Law enforcement, drug treatment, mental health care, and legalizing SROs might, though the real issue is that these people need to help themselves. If I believed, as many of you profess to, that my race was at risk of going extinct, I wouldn't be centering my politics around helping the least capable members of said race who refuse to help themselves. Don't you have bigger problems? It's not like you should feel any "political" loyalty to them, Trump's working-class base work, homeless people rarely vote.
More options
Context Copy link