DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs Right
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9652--------------------------------------------------
Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 3, 2021, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
Feel free to add examples as you come across them!
Observe how our enemies are trying to portray veganism as
nothing more than attention-seeking:
gatesofvienna.net/2019/10/the-new-sorrows-of-young-snowflakes/
[quote]Biology wasn’t the only dangerous class for us. One of
the most important studies was geography. Before that, we led a
dull existence, and ate what tasted good. Then, in geography, we
saw a film about the meat industry and my little snowflakes
realized that even the gelatin in gummy bears did not grow on
trees, but came from sweet little piggies. At a stroke, all of
them were vegetarians. And it is not enough to just be a
vegetarian, you have to live it. To the shock of how cute
cutlets were when alive came a second, more important one — that
almost no one was a vegetarian at the time.
The situation was brilliant for my classmates. They were special
again with their new insight and could set themselves off from
the masses, see themselves as better, more enlightened. What I
find comforting is that, of those where prepared to go under the
axe with every dead piglet, hardly any of them today will give
up her schnitzel. Not eating meat has become quite normal, and
nobody wants to be that conformist. The little bit of attention
is not enough reward for the sacrifice. So, either go right to
being vegan, or forget food altogether, and declare yourself a
non-binary, pansexual, rainbow person.[/quote]
Two can play at psychoanalysis. I suspect that rightists' real
reason for wanting to prevent veganism from becoming mainstream
is because once consumption of animal products is established as
unethical, the world will start looking at which civilization
introduced industrial-scale meat/egg/dairy factories as well as
which countries consume the most animal products per capita to
this day, whereupon Western civilization will look far worse
than it even already does! In other words, they would rather the
world be kept ethically blind to violence against animals (which
would then continue indefinitely into the future) for the sake
of not having to face up to the fact that it was Western
civilization which is responsible for most of the same violence
in the past.
(The same concern - not wanting to make Western civilization
look bad - also explains rightists reflexively refusing to
believe in global warming.)
---
vdare.com/posts/why-the-increasing-frequency-of-scare-quotes-aro
und-white-people
[quote]Why the Increasing Frequency of Scare Quotes Around
"White" People?[/quote]
Because I bothered to start the trend off many years ago, and
other leftists joined as they saw its meaning.
[quote]From the New York Times opinion section:
How Italians Became ‘White’
By Brent Staples
Mr. Staples is a member of the editorial board.
OCT. 12, 2019
...
I first noticed this trend with Ta-Nehisi Coates’ hilarious
bestseller in 2015, where blacks are “black bodies” and whites
are “people who think that they are white.”
In other words, I guess, TNC wants to imply that blacks are
authentically black, but whites all have a touch of the tar
brush.[/quote]
You guess wrongly. TNC is implying that it was "whites" who
invented both the "black" and the "white" identities to serve
"white" interests. "Blacks" are "black bodies" because they had
"black" identity imposed upon them without their own consent,
indeed without even being consulted about it beforehand.
"Whites" are "people who think that they are white" because all
it takes to discontinue this mess is for individuals who are
taught that they are "white" to refuse to see themselves as such
(whereupon they will simultaneously also cease to see people
classified "black" as such).
[quote]This just seems childish and moronic, but it appears a
lot of people are getting into this kind of thinking now. After
all, race is just a social construct, so we get to say whatever
we feel, so we just spew random insults at whites, such as
implying that they suck because they are part black. Which,
logically, is self-defeating, but TNC didn’t get his Genius
Grant for being logical, now did he?[/quote]
No, you suck because you willingly think you are "white", a
colonial-era concept. Your pre-Renaissance ancestors (who by
definition share your ancestry) were somehow able to live their
lives fine without thinking of themselves as "white", therefore
they do not suck (even though they share your ancestry), unlike
you who do suck because of your colonialist attitude.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#Modern_racial_hierarchies
[quote]The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major
European languages in the later 17th century, originating with
the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the
Atlantic slave trade[11] and the enslavement of indigenous
peoples in the Spanish Empire.[12][/quote]
As I have said before, anyone who calls themselves "white"
(without quotation marks) is basically saying: "I wish the
colonial era never ended."
(You also suck because you obliviously call yourself "white"
(without quotation marks) while not being remotely white in
complexion. This is you (Steve Sailer):
[img]
HTML https://pumpkinperson.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/sailer.png?w=529[/img]
The colour of your shirt collar is white. The colour of your
skin is more similar to the colour of your necktie.)
JAM once wrote extensively on the same topic (quote from email):
[quote]"White" is a club. Sometimes you're in and sometimes
you're out. The Irish weren't members of the "White Club" for a
long time. They were just pale-skinned niggers. The racial slur
"Mick" means "a pale-skinned nigger from Ireland who doesn't
know how to act civilized." Irish were actually called "green
niggers" by members of the White Club. The Italians were nothing
but a bunch of niggers too. That's what the racial slur "wop"
means; it means "a pale-skinned nigger with a spaghetti dick."
Slowly but surely the Irish, Italians and other pale-skinned
niggers got their "White Club Membership Card" and since it's
privileges come from the Jew—and since they don't want to let go
of all those privileges—they won't ever destroy Jewish
Supremacy. Whites might lose their house nigger status if they
did that. Perhaps Blacks, Chinese, East Indians or some other
"non-whites" would eventually become the dominant superpower in
the world, and "whites" can't allow that to happen. It's better
for "whites" to let the Jews help them oppress other peoples, so
long as the whites aren't being as oppressed as the non-whites.
...
To be "white" in the first place requires a suspension of
objective reality; you have to willingly deceive yourself to
accept the membership card for the "White Club." You have to
look in the mirror and see a complexion that is nowhere near
"white" and say, "I'm white," and it is at that point that
you're ready to believe anything else no matter how absurd. No
human being is colored white, nor even comes close to the color
white.
...
Understand this: a "white" person (which has no objective
existence) would rather be called "white" than called by the
name of his genetic origin, if the latter excludes his right to
show his "White Club Membership Card." In other words, a "white"
would rather give up being Italian or Irish or German, so long
as he can still be white. Don't believe me?
What do you think a lot of these "whites" were doing before they
got official "White Club" membership status?
"I'm not Irish, I'm white." "I'm not Italian, I'm white."
Polish? Everybody knows Polish people are dumb as a sack of
bricks, right?
"Polish? Hell no, I'm white!"
Of course, some Polish elders don't consider themselves "white"
to this day, and will take offense at being called "white," as
they consider whites to be nothing but savages, but most of the
Polish youths are card carrying members of the "White Club."
...
How many Germans do you see standing up to tell people that the
Holocaust is a lie? Germans would rather just be quietly
"white." Any German that doesn't proudly defend the truth of
what happened during World War II is a card carrying member of
the "White Club," and today, most Germans are "white." Despite
what thick-headed White Nationalists would have people believe,
the "Whites" were the enemies of Nazi Germany, thus any German
that gets in bed with the "whites" is joining a club of Jews and
Anglos (Hitler's enemies). These facts are outlined in the book
Warwolves of the Iron Cross: The Union Jackal by Veronica Clark,
which shows that the Germans really despised the British (head
house nigger of the Jew) perhaps more than the Jew itself. How
sad that Germans today want to be "white" instead of Germans.
...
They want to be part of the winning team, rather than the team
that lost. . .and might lose again.
A "white" is always a winner, even when he is a loser. But
sometimes a German is a winner and sometimes a German is a
loser—but he is always a German. Most would rather be "white."
It's safe and it's easy, and it even rolls off the tongue better
because it's only one syllable.
...
You have to say: Regardless of whether I win or lose, or people
think I'm right or wrong, I don't want any of the benefits
you're offering.[/quote]
---
More Sailer idiocy; in arguing against Ball, he becomes an
instant example of the exact logical deficiency among ethnic
stereotypers that Ball (italicized) is trying to point out (my
bold):
vdare.com/posts/philip-ball-in-the-guardian-i-read-angela-saini-
s-superior-and-the-scales-fell-from-my-eyes
[quote]But genetics has found no such innate origins of
behavioural differences between “races” – and it is highly
unlikely, given what we know about genetic variation, that it
would.
Uh, no …
For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be
lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what
our brains find so hard to process is that no one is
lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.
The Chinese adult is lactose-intolerant because he had Chinese
parents who were lactose-intolerant. Even if he were adopted and
raised in milk-drinking obsessed Denmark, he would still be
lactose-intolerant because of who his parents were and the genes
they gave him.[/quote]
No, the Chinese adult is lactose-intolerant because he had
parents who were lactose-intolerant.
A Danish adult with lactose-intolerant parents would also be
lactose-intolerant, and despite being raised in
milk-drinking-obsessed Denmark would similarly remain
lactose-intolerant because of the genes his parents gave him.
In other words, ethnicity is irrelevant, just as Ball asserted.
And Sailer's is a specimen brain that finds it so hard to
process that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are
Chinese, just as Ball asserted.
---
Our enemies show they cannot even distinguish between racism and
anti-racism:
vdare.com/articles/this-day-in-vdare-com-history-why-do-only-whi
tes-lose-jobs-over-racial-remarks
[quote]A question I've never seen discussed is why only whites
seem to suffer the consequences of inappropriate racial remarks.
If whites had a monopoly on racist speech, perhaps it would be
understandable. But well-known blacks routinely make racist
remarks about whites and others. None, to my knowledge, have
been fired or faced anything more than mild criticism.
Consider the following:
Ice Cube was a black "gangsta rapper" in the late 1990s who
routinely advocated racist violence against non-blacks. One of
his albums, titled "Death Certificate," contained this rap about
Asian store owners:
"So don't follow me up and down your market
Or your little chop suey ass will be a target
So pay your respects to the black fist
Or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp."
Today, Ice Cube is an actor who makes millions playing the
fun-loving father with a heart of gold in family movies like Are
We There Yet and the sequel, Are We Done Yet.[/quote]
Yes, because the lyrics are not racist speech, but anti-racist
speech. Let me translate:
[quote]"So don't follow me up and down your market[/quote]
Ice Cube is telling the store owner not to ethnically profile
"black" customers. In other words, it is a condmenation of the
store owner's racist behaviour.
[quote]Or your little chop suey ass will be a target[/quote]
Who invented the "chop suey" stereotype? Answer: "whites"*. Ice
Cube is reminding the store owner that "whites" stereotype
"Asians" just like the store owner is stereotyping "blacks", so
knowing how it feels to be on the receiving end of ethnic
sterotyping, the store owner has no excuse for dishing it out.
Ice Cube is basically citing the Golden Rule.
(* More specifically, Jews:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwiqmv6Xeo
[quote]Flower Drum Song was the eighth musical by the team of
Rodgers and Hammerstein.[/quote]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rodgers
[quote]Born into a prosperous German Jewish family in Arverne,
Queens, New York City, Rodgers was the son of Mamie (Levy) and
Dr. William Abrahams Rodgers, a prominent physician who had
changed the family name from Rogazinsky.[/quote]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Hammerstein_II
[quote]Oscar Greeley Clendenning Hammerstein II was born in New
York City, the son of Alice Hammerstein (née Nimmo) and
theatrical manager William Hammerstein.[2] His grandfather was
the German theatre impresario Oscar Hammerstein I. His father
was from a Jewish family, and his mother was the daughter of
Scottish and English parents.[3] [/quote]
)
[quote]So pay your respects to the black fist[/quote]
This refers to the Black Power salute, which is an anti-racist
salute:
Ice Cube is reminding the store owner that anti-racist activism
fights on behalf of all victims of racism regardless of
ethnicity, and hence deserves respect from all victims of
racism.
[quote]Or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp."[/quote]
But if the store owner dishonourably persists in ethnic
stereotyping, retaliation will come. This is anti-racism.
The above actually needs to be explained to rightists??
And then it gets worse:
[quote]One important difference when noting the double standard
in treatment of blacks and whites over racial remarks is the
context of the offending statements. Most of the "racist"
remarks by whites are jokes, or statements said in a
light-hearted manner. The statements of Trent Lott, Don Imus,
Kelly Tilghman, Fuzzy Zoeller and other whites all fall into
this category. Not so with most of the blacks. When they make
racial remarks it is often racial slurs (Bernard Hopkins, Dick
Gregory, Willie Brown) or expressions of intense hatred towards
whites (Ice Cube, bell hooks, Jonathan Farley).[/quote]
So "whites" using "blacks" as amusement is OK, but "blacks"
getting angry at being treated as amusement is not OK? Bullying
is OK but getting angry at bullying is not OK? This is what is
meant by: "It's OK to be white."
#Post#: 9653--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 3, 2021, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT contd.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q9TRIkOiX8
The host of this video is an idiot! He basically says at one
point: "[Cuomo] doesn't get it, both sides think they're morally
right.". Well, if both sides think they are right, logically
both are either wrong, or one side is right and the other side
is wrong. If we apply the golden rule to this equation: "do unto
others as you would want done upon you", then it should not be
difficult to understand that the side that exhibits racism is
morally and ethically wrong. Would racists want to be treated
the same way by a state that victims of racism get treated
simply because of the color of their skin, something no one has
any control over when they are born into this world? Of course
not. The real reason racists believe they are right is because
they are "white". Lastly, racism IS INITIATED VIOLENCE!!! It is
the duty of the morally and ethically superior anti-racists to
retaliate against initiated violence!
By the simple standard set by the Golden Rule it should not be
hard to see that 'anti-racism' is the morally correct position.
The host of this video clip just doesn't get it, because he IS
morally and ethically inferior to Chris Cuomo!
---
One of the most stupid anti-BLM arguments I have been seeing
over and over again these last two weeks (yet whose stupidity
does not appear self-evident to many people) involves rightists
pointing out that numerically more "black" victims are killed by
"black" criminals than by police. As if this irrelevant
statistic somehow singlehandedly invalidates BLM.
This reveals a fundamental incapability by rightists to grasp
what BLM means. BLM means that murderers of "black" victims
should not be allowed to go unpunished (while the same murderers
would be punished if they had killed "white" victims).
Western police forces have no tendency to let off "black"
criminals who kill "black" victims. So everything is fine here.
The problem is that Western police forces have a persistent
tendency to let off (mostly "white") police officers who kill
"black" victims. This is what BLM was founded to end.
And, once again, the fact that I even need to explain something
so utterly obvious is not an encouraging sign.....
---
Not this shit again...:
How many fucking times do I need to explain it to you? To be
“pro-White” is to be anti-“non-white”. To be pro-black is to
simply be pro-black.
---
Newcomers are unlikely to understand what you are saying. Why is
it not anti-"non-black" to be pro-"black"? Please clarify for
their benefit.
In any case, it is not good to be pro-"black". Being
anti-"white" (which includes being anti-Jewish, by the way) is
much better. Only the latter attitude is structurally absent of
self-interest.
---
Let me clarify: since “blackness” was a category invented by
“whites”, to be “pro-black” is simply to identify with an
oppressed group, which never would have existed in the first
place if it weren’t for the oppressors (I.e. “whites”).
---
“blackness” was a category invented by “whites”
"which never would have existed in the first place if it weren’t
for the oppressors (I.e. “whites”)."
True.
[quote]to be “pro-black” is simply to identify with an oppressed
group[/quote]
Not necessarily true. It is theoretically possible for
"pro-black" to carry tribalist connotations. This is why I
advise not endorsing this term.
(It is worth pointing out that BLM is provably not "pro-black".
If they were, they would not be toppling Columbus statues, since
Columbus never harmed "blacks":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Criticism_and_defense
_in_modern_scholarship
[quote]Columbus organized his troops' efforts, forming a
squadron of several hundred heavily armed men and more than
twenty attack dogs. Dogs were used to hunt down natives who
attempted to flee.[159] Columbus's men tore across the land,
killing thousands of sick and unarmed natives. Soldiers would
use their captives for sword practice, attempting to decapitate
them or cut them in half with a single blow.[166]
The Arawaks attempted to fight back against Columbus's men but
lacked their armor, guns, swords, and horses. When taken
prisoner, they were hanged or burned to death. Desperation led
to mass suicides and infanticide among the natives. In just two
years under Columbus's governorship, over 125,000 of the
250,000–300,000 natives in Haiti were dead,[61] many died from
lethal forced labor in the mines, in which a third of workers
died every six months.[167] Within three decades, the surviving
Arawak population numbered only in the hundreds.[167] "Virtually
every member of the gentle race ... had been wiped out."[159]
Disease, warfare and harsh enslavement contributed to the
depopulation.[168][169][170][/quote]
BLM toppling Columbus statues shows BLM cares about "non-black"
"non-whites". The BLM alliance with BDS reflects the same
attitude.)
---
Okay, but would you agree that the term “pro-Palestine” also
carries such connotations?
---
Not at present, but if Palestinians hypothetically were to
become identitarian, then it could. In fact, the two-state
solution is a Zionist tactic to tempt pro-Palestine people with
identitarianism, in the form: "If you recognize Israel, you at
least get to keep a (smaller) Palestine. If you refuse to
recognize Israel, you could end up with no Palestine at all."
Which is why I always promote anti-Israel sentiment as opposed
to pro-Palestine sentiment.
---
would you say that those who identify as “pro-Brown”,
“pro-Black”, etc. are westernized? After all, they are
classifying themselves using the same categories as heir
Eurocentric colonizers did.
---
Yes, though probably unintentionally.
#Post#: 9654--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 3, 2021, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest:
HTML https://www.amren.com/commentary/2021/11/a-message-to-my-american-brothers/
[quote]We must demoralize our opponents by understanding them
better than they understand themselves.[/quote]
I look forward to watching you try.
[quote]There still is white supremacy, but it lives in the
subconscious of the Left. That’s why it fights us so
hysterically. We must force Leftists to understand themselves
Leftists obviously do not think non-whites are their equal. No
one would try so hard to help an equal.[/quote]
Firstly, we do not believe in equality. No two individuals are
equal.
Secondly, what rightists have trouble understanding (because
they are barbarians) is that "weaker" does not mean "inferior".
We (who are not barbarians) do not believe "non-whites" are
inferior to "whites" in the qualities which we value. We do, on
the other hand, recognize the obvious truth that "non-whites"
lack power compared to "whites", which is why "whites" were able
to colonize "non-white" countries. (If anything, we consider the
greater emphasis of Western civilization on increasing power
(e.g. via machines) compared to other civilizations to be
evidence of its qualitative inferiority.)
It is perfectly possible to want to help those who lack power
without considering them inferior to those who possess power
(indeed who created the civilization most concerned with
increasing power) and who use that power to oppress those who
lack power.
Similarly, I do not consider non-humans inferior to humans, but
I do recognize that they are weaker. In this case the power gap
is even greater, and thus non-humans are in even greater need of
help, because there is already no chance that they can ever
defeat their oppressors by themselves:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/
While between "whites" and "non-whites" it hasn't gotten quite
this bad yet, it could easily become worse:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
#Post#: 9764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: guest55 Date: November 12, 2021, 10:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I look forward to watching you try.[/quote]
Indeed! :D
#Post#: 9993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: guest55 Date: December 4, 2021, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
David Brooks Looks At 'Terrifying Future' Of U.S. Right At
Conservative Conference
[quote]Writer David Brooks discusses his latest piece 'The
Terrifying Future of the American Right,' which details the
trends he observed at the National Conservatism Conference in
Florida.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo5vaXUNlSU
The True Left DOES want to destroy you, but NOT because we "hate
America" but because we LOVE America and believe rightists are
UN-AMERICAN COUP ATTEMPTING WESTERNERS in line with the same
western colonialists who originally colonized America! If
rightists actually behaved as Americans, instead of Westerners,
we would have no issue with rightists other than their love for
Judeo-Christianity, Israel, and Russia, whom we merely see as
more examples of Western colonialism!
One thing is for certain, both false-leftists and rightists are
destroying America presently for WESTERN INTERESTS!!!
Duhhhhh!!!! OMFG!?!? Can you people be any fucken dumber than
you already are, is it even possible?
#Post#: 10869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 27, 2022, 9:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://vdare.com/posts/will-the-fat-become-the-next-identity-politics-sacred-cow
[quote]It’s not that the fat rank terribly high on the pyramid
of intersectionality…yet. But you can imagine that they might
someday, and thus you can foresee yourself having your career
canceled in, say, 2029 over some fat jokes you told in
2022.[/quote]
No, the fat have a higher carbon footprint.
So do the muscular, though. Therefore muscular fat-shamers will
be considered hypocrites. Only low-BMI people will be considered
qualified to fat-shame.
True Leftism is low-BMI supremacism, and ultimately heritable
low-BMI supremacism:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-metabolism/msg7980/#msg7980
#Post#: 12320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: guest55 Date: March 27, 2022, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a good one! I'd go a step further though, gender is not
primarily a capitalist phenomenon but a Western one! This
reminded me of an Oliver Malloy quote I posted previously:
[quote]We live in this bubble of ignorance. Most people know
nothing about history, or the historical context of the
traditions they still follow today. People do things without
knowing why they're doing them. — Oliver Markus Malloy[/quote]
The average Westerner, especially rightists, obviously have
absolutely zero understanding of how programmed they actually
are. Most of their "thoughts" are not their own.
Let's talk about a question about gender....
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ53lVyi4so
#Post#: 12321--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: guest55 Date: March 27, 2022, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, there goes the rightist argument that immigration
increases murder and rape rates in a state:
Study: States With High Murder Rates More Likely To Be
Republican
[quote]Republicans love to blame crime on Democrats and liberal
policies. Last week during the confirmation hearing, multiple
senators questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson views branding
her as "soft on crime". However, a new report shows among the 10
states with the highest murder rates in 2020 ... eight of them
voted for Trump.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVIQ_Tt0zcc
Turns out the mental and spiritual illness of rightists actually
increases murder rates, who would have thunk it!? :D
#Post#: 12439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 1, 2022, 10:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://occidentaldissent.com/2022/04/01/tablet-mag-the-new-authoritarians/
[quote]Liberalism 3.0 is at odds with Liberalism 1.0. It is
focused on controlling speech and thought. It knows exactly what
is good … things like antiracism, racial equity, intelligence
agencies, vaccines, veganism, Ukraine or “trans” rights.[/quote]
At least credit to them for calling the True Left "Liberalism
3.0" as opposed to the False Left which they call "Liberalism
1.0".
Yes, as moral absolutists, we know exactly what is good.
No, most vaccines went through violent testing on animals,
therefore are non-vegan. On this account alone, it is impossible
for us as vegans to consider vaccines to be good. But even if
hypothetically vaccines were vegan, they are still not good, as
the approach of dealing with pandemics via vaccines is
characteristically Western:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg4617/#msg4617
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg7753/#msg7753
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg8604/#msg8604
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg10403/#msg10403
And no, Ukraine is racist, therefore it is impossible for us as
anti-racists to consider Ukraine to be good:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11570/#msg11570
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11608/#msg11608
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11630/#msg11630
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11637/#msg11637
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11656/#msg11656
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11682/#msg11682
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11723/#msg11723
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11749/#msg11749
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11795/#msg11795
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12061/#msg12061
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12116/#msg12116
Back to enemy article:
[quote]In this respect, Liberalism 3.0 departs from Liberalism
1.0 which was suspicious of state power and Liberalism 2.0 which
was suspicious of corporate power. Liberalism 3.0 celebrates
authority and grasps for power like a man dying of thirst in a
desert. It chafes under restraints. It us intolerant and loves a
good witch hunt. It constantly appeals to the authorities to …
DO SOMETHING.[/quote]
Yes, we are intolerant. No, we do not love a good witch hunt. We
would prefer no witches existed in the first place. But since
witches do exist, ending their existence ASAP is our duty. Yes,
we will appeal to the authorities to do something, but if the
authorities turn out to be more tolerant of the witches than we
are, it becomes our duty to replace them also.
#Post#: 12483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rightists getting leftism wrong
By: Dazhbog Date: April 4, 2022, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=1026.msg12439#msg12439
date=1648869327]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555<br
/>etc. [Evacuation of non-"whites" from Ukraine - Dazhbog][/quot
e]
The relevant question when deciding whether a particular policy
is racist is whether it benefits the in-group, in this case
"whites". Therefore, the policies in question must have been
aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" in one way
or another.
You could argue that the underlying intention was to get the
"white" refugees to safety as regards the dangers posed by the
Russian invasion at the expense of the non-"white" refugees,
however, being safe from the dangers posed by the Russian
invasion specifically is in the long run not actually decisive
in and of itself when it comes to demographics.
As we have seen, upon evacuating Ukraine, a lot of the
non-"white" refugees actually repatriated to their (already
majority non-"white") countries of origin (group 1), meaning
that for the time being, they aren't contributing to the
de-whitening of majority "white" countries. Sure, you could
argue that at least they are still alive and might thus be able
to once more migrate to a majority "white" country. This however
exposes them to increasingly racist migration policies, so it's
anyone's guess whether they ever make it to a majority "white"
country again. Add to that the fact that even in relatively
stable and prosperous states, they are still disproportionally
endangered by the effects of climate change, which tend to hit
majority non-"white" countries more severly than majority
"white" ones, so it's actually anyone's guess whether they even
survive long enough to migrate at all! In other words,
evacuating this group of non-"white" refugees has effectively
neutralized them from a demographic point of view.
Another number went for other EU-countries (group 2). They might
end up considerably safer than group 1 as far as war and climate
change are concerned, however, their perspective of staying
there in the long term is anyone's guess, so there is still a
decent likelihood they will end up like group 1 anyway. Add to
that that they might still be subject to racial profiling,
racist violence and detention, particularly in racist Poland,
which they have to cross to go anywhere within the EU. Add to
that that gun laws in the EU are rather restrictive, meaning
they likely won't have the chance to even defend themselves (and
diminish the "white" demographic in the process). All in all,
their perspective of negatively impacting "white" demographics
upon evacuating Ukraine still isn't particularly good.
Last but not least, a number of non-"white" refugees were
citizens of majority "white" countries and Ukraine (group 3).
They likely don't face the threat of deportation that group 2
faces, however, all the other problems remain. Their chances of
negatively impacting "white" demographics are better than those
of the other two groups but still not exactly great.
Had they simply stayed in Ukraine, they would of course have
been exposed to the full force of the Russian invasion with a
considerable risk of dying. On the other hand, they would have
had a rather easy time obtaining weapons and training, enabling
them to kill "whites", which already would have enabled them to
directly diminish "white" demographics. Add to that that the
Ukrainian evacuation policy disproportionally favors "white"
females, meaning that the remaining "white" population, which
would be dying at a similar rate as the non-"white" population,
has a harder time replacing their losses through reproduction,
whereas no such gender-based favoritism is evident regarding the
non-"white" refugees, meaning they have an easier time replacing
their losses through reproduction, which in turn means their
population will grow at a faster rate than the "white"
population, meaning that at least Ukraine can be successfully
de-whitened to some extent.
You could argue then that Ukraine being de-whitened is by far
not as important as de-whitening safer, more prosperous and
nuclear-armed countries such as France or Britain. Alright, but
as the Turkish example demonstrates, having a non-white country
immediately adjacent to the EU as a transit point for migrants
and refugees already has a huge value in and of itself. Besides,
not evacuating immediately, taking up weapons, getting training
and combat experience and storming the border by force of arms
in the aftermath (ideally killing more "whites" in the process)
is still a more promising path towards that end than evacuating
immediately.
(It should be noted however that while this eliminates the risks
for refugee groups 2 and 3 on their passage to some other
country, it won't necessarily prevent group 1 from voluntarily
repatriating and becoming demographically useless in the
process, so depending on which refugee group is the largest,
precautions should be taken to at least discourage them from
doing so.)
As should be evident by now, if anything, Ukraine shouldn't be
criticized for making it more difficult for non-"whites" to
evacuate, but for not outright banning them from evacuating.
However, the latter would have made for even worse PR and
diplomatic scandals than the path ultimately chosen and would
have almost certainly cost Ukraine a huge chunk of the support
they desperately need. Ultimately, discouraging Ukrainian
non-"whites" from leaving in a subtle manner by making
evacuation as difficult and dangerous for them as possible was
the sensible way to go, even if it didn't work out in the end.
Regardless of the lackluster result, the policies in question
weren't aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites"
and consequently weren't racist.
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=1026.msg12439#msg12439
date=1648869327]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901<br
/>[Racism in Soviet Ukraine - Dazhbog][/quote]
The same Soviet officials who enforced racist policies and
condoned the lynch mob mentioned in the article quoted also
mercilessly **** down on any display of Ukrainianness around the
same time. Today, Ukrainianness is in many regards openly
celebrated and Soviet sympathies **** down upon, meaning a
dramatic shift in attitudes took place, which also implies
certain demographic changes. In other words, post-Soviet
Ukrainians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Ukrainians.
The demographics of the city of Kherson in particular (where the
massacre in question took place) changed as well (the share of
the Russian and the Jewish population declined, whereas the
share of the Ukrainian population increased). In other words,
the bloodlines responsible for the massacre aren't necessarily
as present today as they were back in 1964. Again, post-Soviet
Khersonians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Khersonians.
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=1026.msg12439#msg12439
date=1648869327]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936<br
/>[Ukrainian politician Vadym Prystaiko stereotypes non-"whites"
as "foreigners" that "stick out in a crowd" and wants to "put
them in some other place" - Dazhbog][/quote]
Prystaiko is ethnically stereotyping for sure, "putting them in
some other place" however is at least open to the interpretation
that he would endorse banning non-"whites" from evacuating,
which, as argued above, might very well de-whiten Ukraine,
making them no longer "foreigners" by his own definition. So
there is no reason to assume that he is trying to enforce
whiteness, subhuman phenotype notwithstanding.
Let me know in case I forgot the odd point from your list.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page