X Close

The feebleness of white nationalists They're more like the modern Left than they think

A member of the KKK shouts at protestors (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

A member of the KKK shouts at protestors (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)


January 3, 2023   6 mins

Ever since the election of Donald Trump, the putative rise of “white supremacy” or “white nationalism” has been a perennial worry among mainstream pundits, both inside America and abroad. For liberals, the imminent rise of “fascism” serves as a powerful rhetorical device and a political cudgel to be wielded against those on the Right — but even among conservatives there is occasional and genuine concern that racism as a political force might be making an ugly return, especially among the young.

Are people right to worry? Or, to pose the question in a slightly different way, is there really a political future for “white nationalism”? Thankfully, a very recent online controversy sheds a (fairly embarrassing) light on both of these questions. As we shall see, it is indeed true that the internet is filled with politically conscious “racists”, and that the idea of “white nationalism” seems more popular than ever among a certain segment of America’s millennials and Zoomers. But it is equally apparent that racism simply isn’t what it used to be. Far from being dangerous rebels, we instead find yet another tribe of “lost penguins“; radical political orphans without a party or a patronage machine willing to take care of them, and with no will or ability to build one on their own. To understand why, we must turn to a very modern fairy-tale: the tale of the legendary Waffle House Valkyrie.

The “Waffle House Valkyrie” is the nickname of the protagonist of a recently viral video, depicting a late night brawl at (where else?) a Waffle House. A black woman is filmed raising her chair as if to throw it at a white woman behind the counter, who gestures mockingly as though inviting the black woman to throw the chair at her. The chair is duly thrown, and the woman behind the counter deftly and gracefully deflects it before grabbing it out of the air.

To normal people, this was just another amusing viral video. But in certain corners of the internet, it was, at least for a short while, transformed into something more. To these people, the woman in question became a “shield-maiden”, a “Valkyrie”, and an “Aryan wife”, supposedly standing up for white people against the random criminality of America’s black citizens. Like previous virally famous women on the internet — such as the Crimean prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya — a good deal of fan art was created in a short time, as well as a good helping of memes.

To take an example, the British online personality Carl Benjamin (better known by his nom-de-guerre, Sargon of Akkad) reposted a picture of the Waffle House employee with glowing eyes and the caption “Stand alone if you must, but you must stand”. The subtext here isn’t particularly subtle, and many of the comments made explicit what Benjamin himself only alluded to — this was an example of White America finally taking a stand against its unruly minorities. Finally, the white man (or woman, as the case happened to be) was fighting back.

All this hype lasted until the star of the show — the Valkyrie herself — posted a video in which she told her side of what had happened that night. At this point, everything started going wrong. The woman in question spoke like a member of southern Louisiana’s lowly white working class. Enthusiasm turned into disgust, and even in some cases rage. When people found out the woman had a black boyfriend, the jig was up, and it became open season for everyone who wanted to vent their hatred for the “ghetto trash”, “garbage”, “hoodrats”, and “negroidified whites”. “Millions must die”, one anonymous account quipped, and those “millions” of people whose lives would be snuffed out to set America straight again would include many or most white people, for they were simply too far gone to be saved.

The parasocial attachment of an online “movement” to this clip, hailing a woman as a saviour for the white race before viciously turning on her, is telling — because we in the West have been here before. The most famous example of this cultural and political whiplash occurred on election night in Britain in late 2019. After the British working class rejected the Labour Party and the “Marxist” radicals who had come to set large parts of its agenda, social media was filled with the exact same hatred towards the very people whom the haters were ostensibly there to “defend”. Many who had earlier professed a deep respect for “the working class” spent the election night viciously denouncing those workers as “gammon”, “racists”, “ignorant”, and of being “ungrateful” in not understanding that these radicals were only trying to help them.

While the people around Jeremy Corbyn formed something like an actual political movement, by contrast, the American “white nationalist” or “dissident Right” sphere describes an entirely online phenomenon, one that is mostly in the business of selling podcast subscriptions and dietary supplements. And yet, the problem facing the white nationalist or “racist” Right is the same as the one recently faced by the “pro-working class” or “communist” Left. It’s not just that there’s not a whole lot of real-world buy-in for the belief system being sold, though this is of course true. The deeper issue has to do with the sellers, not the reluctant buyers, of the radical ideology on offer. The radicals on the Right, just as the radicals on the Left, consist almost entirely of deeply dissatisfied people who stayed in education and “did everything right”, but for whom success has never materialised.

Ever since identity politics took over Western campuses, there has been a brisk trade in think-pieces by stodgy conservative thinkers warning of a coming (white) “backlash” that would have potentially very destructive effects for marginalised people and minorities of all kinds. Well, the backlash is actually here, and it is indeed far less threatening than people made it out to be. Expectations of campus politics generating some sort of broad-based mass movement — of ordinary whites goose-stepping in tandem through the main streets of Anytown, USA — turned out to be widely off the mark. Instead, the backlash to self-absorbed middle-class identity politics turned out to be simply another kind of self-absorbed middle-class identity politics, perpetrated by the losers of the former, while retaining more or less the exact same form and syntax. And why shouldn’t it? The true losers of mainstream identity politics and the perpetrators of this kind of politics on the prestige campuses of Western universities have much, much more in common than either side would like to admit.

Identity politics has jokingly been called “oppression Olympics”, as various identity and affinity groups desperately try to upstage each other in order to win favour (and institutional representation, government money, and NGO sinecures). They have to compete, because the job and housing markets for graduates and soi-disant “elites” are now so terrible that the world increasingly resembles a game of musical chairs: for one person to prosper, another one has to be deprived. Here, the dissident Right’s response has mostly been to form their own Olympic team of professional grievance-mongers; using everything from racial IQ statistics to crime rates to historical examples such as the slave revolt on Haiti to prove that Whites (which they now usually capitalise, mirroring the mainstream preoccupation with capitalising the word Black) are indeed the most put-upon and victimised people on this earth. The future of politics is here, in other words, and it looks an awful lot like yesterday.

One should not bend the stick too far when arguing that the new online dissident Right is almost a carbon copy of the now defunct populist Left. While the ideology, the tenor, and the class background of these two movements is almost identical, the dissident Right is by all accounts a far feebler political force with no place to call home.

During at least a short period, the populist Left was in control of large parts of the Labour Party, and were a credible threat to the neoliberal establishment in the US through candidate Bernie Sanders. By contrast, the dissident Right controls no parts of any party apparatus, and in many ways directly opposes the direction of the Republican Party, to which they are in theory supposed to be affiliated. A term such as the “multiracial working class” being the future of the GOP is not the product of some self-styled Marxist pundit, but rather of Steve Bannon. That this term is complete anathema to the wishes of the dissident online Right, who by and large despise any mention of a solidaristic politics that doesn’t explicitly favour them, has in no way prevented it from being further popularised by influential senators such as Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio. It has also been adopted by institutions and publications with far more clout and access to the halls of power than the rag-tag band of people who (at least for a short moment) found an inspiring example of an “Aryan shield-maiden” behind the counter at a Louisiana Waffle House.

After the spectacle of communists who hate and fear the workers, we now are treated with another spectacle: white nationalists who openly fear and loathe a plurality or even a majority of their fellow white countrymen. And though it is droll to say that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce, political observers will come to agree that this latest generation of dissident radicals presents a far greater source of humour than it does an actual political threat. Nobody needs them politically or economically, and indeed nobody is offering to step up to take care of them or help them even as they suffer — this is the plight of the modern radical today.


Malcom Kyeyune is a freelance writer living in Uppsala, Sweden

SwordMercury

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

349 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago

The left have done their best to racialise society since the 80s, and are now throwing their hands up in horror that it is racialised.
What did they think was going to happen? Did they think they could cast white people as evil and get them to denounce themselves forever?
It is at least politically smart in a place like South Africa to demonise white people when they are demographically too weak to mount a response.
It is quite another thing to demonise them in countries where they are the majority. White identity politics may just be beginning and it will likely be ugly.
But it’s the inevitable outcome of deciding that race is not incidental and unimportant, but the central story of peoples’ lives and, moreover, pitted in a zero sum game of survival against other races.
Sometimes I wonder if the faction of the left pushing this stuff has ever read any history at all. It’s as if they regard the Balkans, South Africa, Rwanda, 1930s Germany, and the Soviet Union as examples to follow rather than cautionary tales.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

I’m wondering if you actually read the article or just the headline? It says that despite all the nonsense from the woke crowd, white society hasn’t become radical in the slightest. In fact the white supremacy movement is little more than a few nobodies creating memes while still living with their parents.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Perhaps we draw different conclusions from the article. I disagree with the author – I don’t think that “the backlash is already here” and triflingly mild. I think we are at the very beginning of a transition to something quite different and likely dangerous.
Trump, Brexit, a shift of Europe towards being more conservative, are all being caused by a fear (often very real) of local people being swamped by outside cultures.
As mass migration accelerates I don’t see any of these trends dissipating, particularly not as a recession grips the globe and forces more of these tensions to the surface, and particularly as Africa will add 3 billion new people to the planet by 2100.
I do hope the author is correct, but the history of identity politics suggests that polarising society around identity almost always leads to the same outcome: division, hatred, and, in the worst cases, war and murder.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Peter D
Peter D
1 year ago

When it comes to Europe, migrants are not making an effort to fit in but expect the Europeans to accept them as they are living in and off Europe with little to no respect for the locals.
Last year in Italy, at Lake Guarda I believe, over a hundred African men started chanting “This here is Africa!” Over and over again. If white people were to do the same, there would be an outrage.
Which sums up the sad reality, only white people as a collective can be guilty of crimes, be it slavery or colonialism; only white people should be held accountable.
This attitude is the reason that young people are radicalising. Stop the blame, stop the quotas, and you stop the white nationalists because white people have a long history of being accepting of others.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

Well if a 100 fellas near Lake Garda are chanting such slogans we must all in be in trouble!
What utter tosh. Ever been to a football match and listened to the sort of tribal chanting that goes on? If one took it that seriously we’d be living in a country with hundreds of separately governed principalities.
Just back from a nights work in a hospital – where the clinical staff are overwhelming immigrants or the children of immigrants. ‘Not making an effort to fit in’? Of course they’ll be a few loons, but what do you suggest fitting in looks like?
Young people, much more likely I strongly suspect, to find your views repugnant in part because they’ve grown up with much more diversity than we did and hence see the real people rather than the labels.

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Well said. Real life is only rarely represented in the media (social media included).

Frank Winter
Frank Winter
1 year ago

From my experience of 13 years on the beat media is less bad than real life.
You people have no clue how bad it really is out on the streets. But no worries, you will find out eventually. Just don’t come screaming for help to me when that happens.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

“Dont come screaming for help to me”

Frank – we already know whose side you lot are on, and it ain’t people like me.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago

Fanny that is not helpful-better to ask for more useful detail…..

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago

Fanny that is not helpful-better to ask for more useful detail…..

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

“Dont come screaming for help to me”

Frank – we already know whose side you lot are on, and it ain’t people like me.

Frank Winter
Frank Winter
1 year ago

From my experience of 13 years on the beat media is less bad than real life.
You people have no clue how bad it really is out on the streets. But no worries, you will find out eventually. Just don’t come screaming for help to me when that happens.

Frank Winter
Frank Winter
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Now look at the exploding crime in Europe. Where does it go up most? In all the countries that embraced “diversity”.
There are not just a few loons. There are places in French, Swedish, German cities where they built their own parallel societies and make no effort to assimilate. It goes so far that some politicians in Germany said that there is no German culture and that importing legions of people who live in mud huts enriches society.
I spent 13 years on the beat in a large European city and from there I know you’re just tossing about empty buzzwords and talking points. Go out in the streets instead of hiding in a hospital and look at reality.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

“Hiding in a hospital”?
Jesus wept, what an arse.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

FW you got some data to underpin your first sentence contention? And some data to prove causation?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I love this site.
A request for evidence gets 10 overall downvotes, but no evidence.
Who said the internet killed thought?

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Don’t give up John, I for one appreciate your comments!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

So do I, and j Watson, minus 14 down votes for asking for data is ridiculous.
If you want to make an argument it’s a good idea to have something your backing up it up with before you start. Sourcing stuff takes a Google if you know what your looking for Frank winter and the fourteen down voting idiots. You put it out there. You back it up. Or concede defeat graciously.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

That does rather depend on the person’s idea of what constitutes “evidence”.
Half the people here obviously glean their worldview directly from the more ‘aromatic’ corners of the internet- where you can find “proof” that the latest US mass shooting was a ‘False Flag’, or why the Nazis, the KKK and Attila The Hun were all ‘Left-wing’. Someone below “knows” that the KKK are “working for the FBI” and that the photo above of the bellowing fascist buffoon is a “plant’- and I don’t mean in the ‘vegetable’ sense.
Evidence ain’t what it used to be.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Well the place you read it, a published study or link to a news source, published government statistics, stuff like that would be a good start, if you think the evidence they give is dubious and can give a good reason then fair enough.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Well the place you read it, a published study or link to a news source, published government statistics, stuff like that would be a good start, if you think the evidence they give is dubious and can give a good reason then fair enough.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

That does rather depend on the person’s idea of what constitutes “evidence”.
Half the people here obviously glean their worldview directly from the more ‘aromatic’ corners of the internet- where you can find “proof” that the latest US mass shooting was a ‘False Flag’, or why the Nazis, the KKK and Attila The Hun were all ‘Left-wing’. Someone below “knows” that the KKK are “working for the FBI” and that the photo above of the bellowing fascist buffoon is a “plant’- and I don’t mean in the ‘vegetable’ sense.
Evidence ain’t what it used to be.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

So do I, and j Watson, minus 14 down votes for asking for data is ridiculous.
If you want to make an argument it’s a good idea to have something your backing up it up with before you start. Sourcing stuff takes a Google if you know what your looking for Frank winter and the fourteen down voting idiots. You put it out there. You back it up. Or concede defeat graciously.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Don’t give up John, I for one appreciate your comments!

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Again why the downvotes – ??? this is getting a bit weird…..

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I love this site.
A request for evidence gets 10 overall downvotes, but no evidence.
Who said the internet killed thought?

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Again why the downvotes – ??? this is getting a bit weird…..

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

“Hiding in a hospital”?
Jesus wept, what an arse.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

FW you got some data to underpin your first sentence contention? And some data to prove causation?

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I suspect Peter D is right and you are not on this one. The welfare state was always an exclusive form of solidarity. It depends on a high level of mutual identification – a ‘we identity’. This creates a tension between the rate of immigration, the diversity of the populace – and the rate of integration….which creates the capacity for mutual identification. We are about to enter a period of systemic low/now growth. Without growth, fiscal transfers for welfare decline precipitously….and the capacity of the market to cover over the cracks will evaporate. ….And in such circumstances, the countries most diverse, least integrated and with the greatest propensity for linguistic/cultural ghettos….are most likely to lapse into sectarian tribalism

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

This is the kind of disingenuous rubbish that makes immigrants like me sick of the “pro-immigration” camp.

A typical football crowd in Britain is almost entirely white and shares exactly the same beliefs as the general population in terms of religion, law, culture, treatment of women or gays etc.

Clinical staff are utterly unrepresentative of the immigrant cohorts in Britain. Most immigrants, especially the illegal sort coming in increasingly, are much lower educated and skilled.

And furthermore, even a lot of educated migrants differ significantly in culture. I know of at least three educated migrants who refuse to shake women’s hands, and several who have openly hardline views about other religions, gender equality, look down upon British culture….how many football fans would be the same?

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“A typical football crowd in Britain is almost entirely white and shares exactly the same beliefs as the general population..”
Eh? You think everyone in Britain “shares exactly the same beliefs”? This is simple-minded tripe- I don’t know howl ong you’ve been here, or where you live, but seriously- get out and talk to different people, read some different newspapers. People disagree about pretty much everything. You think all the men in a football crowd are into women’s equality and religious tolerance? Really?
Would that include, for example, the fans who chant about Yids every time they play Tottenham Hotspur, because that team traditionally had a lot of Jewish fans, and “Yid” is a deeply racist term for Jew? Or perhaps you think they also chant their support for women’s equality? I don’t think you’ve been to many football matches…
You sound as if you’ve got your entire knowledge of your adopted country from an old UKIP election leaflet.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Let us look at immigrants attitude to women compared to white British. Would a Muslim be keen on the oldest son marrying someone Jewish and converting to Judaism? What about marrying a Sikh, Hindu or Biddhist?How many religions murder women for marrying outside of the faith? Look at communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in India or Christians and Muslims in Nigeria or Kenya. Should we allow muti in the UK?
Adam (murder victim) – Wikipedia
In East Africa albinos have been murdered for their body parts. What about FGM?
I have listened to Tablighi Jamaat member who was a doctor in the NHS and had his wife fully veiled.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Let us look at immigrants attitude to women compared to white British. Would a Muslim be keen on the oldest son marrying someone Jewish and converting to Judaism? What about marrying a Sikh, Hindu or Biddhist?How many religions murder women for marrying outside of the faith? Look at communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in India or Christians and Muslims in Nigeria or Kenya. Should we allow muti in the UK?
Adam (murder victim) – Wikipedia
In East Africa albinos have been murdered for their body parts. What about FGM?
I have listened to Tablighi Jamaat member who was a doctor in the NHS and had his wife fully veiled.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“A typical football crowd in Britain is almost entirely white and shares exactly the same beliefs as the general population..”
Eh? You think everyone in Britain “shares exactly the same beliefs”? This is simple-minded tripe- I don’t know howl ong you’ve been here, or where you live, but seriously- get out and talk to different people, read some different newspapers. People disagree about pretty much everything. You think all the men in a football crowd are into women’s equality and religious tolerance? Really?
Would that include, for example, the fans who chant about Yids every time they play Tottenham Hotspur, because that team traditionally had a lot of Jewish fans, and “Yid” is a deeply racist term for Jew? Or perhaps you think they also chant their support for women’s equality? I don’t think you’ve been to many football matches…
You sound as if you’ve got your entire knowledge of your adopted country from an old UKIP election leaflet.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

How does knife crime in the last decade compare to the 1950s in south London?A few years ago doctors in South London hospitals went public about the very high levels of knife crime.
South London was much poorer in the 1950s, there was extensive bomb damage. Millions of men had been trained to kill using bayonets and commando knives and hundreds of thousands had done so in combat; yet managed to restrain themselves from using knives in arguments. Yet today some males, largely from ethnic minorities lack this self control; why?
The poverty experienced by the poor in the 1930s Depression was far worse than anything today so why was the knife crime not higher then?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

That is obviously a very complicated question. I assume- maybe wrongly- that given the racialised nature of the article and accompanying comments, you are positing, (whilst avoiding quite saying), that the difference is the increase in the proportion of ‘black people’.
It’s a pretty well evidenced fact that violent crime in Britain has decreased considerably in the last couple of centuries. In 1780, you would carry a small sword or gun when travelling no matter what your class. Gangs ruled the roads. How many black Britons were there then? Very few. So the reasons must logically have been social and economic, not ethnic. The cause then would have been put as ‘class’- the ‘lower’ classes were generally seen by their ‘betters’ as inherently ‘criminal’. Do you agree with that?
Rape, incest, wife-beating and the almost universal abuse of servants was unquestioned then, too. Was this ok? Who knows. Was rape, incest and wife-beating more prevalent in the good old days of the ’50’s- almost certainly. Was that better than now? Who knows…

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Look at coroners reports from 1300 . Britain was very peaceful in rural areas.
Steve Pinker has looked at the murder rate over the centuries. In England the murder rate in about 1300 was about a quarter of that of Italy. yet England and wales was heavily armed.
Ever since 1182 when a Royal Ordnance commanded every home had a spear. By 1300 English and Welsh men were trained to use long bow, quarter staff, sword and dagger plus were trained in bare knuckle boxing. Hence victories in 100 Years war.
There was violence on roads post Civil War but most villages were safe. There was constable who if raised the hue and cry had to assisted by those men between the ages of 15 and 60 and if they did not, were fined.Pre 1800 violence was largely in in rookeries. The introduction of gin in the rookeries produced problems as shown by the cartoons.
The growth of slums in new towns post 1800 caused problems such as over crowding, incest, rape which but the establishment of Metropolitan Police greatly reduced murder . The new town corporations built houses, public baths, schools, hospitals, etc to reduce the problems of over crowding in the slums.
Post 1850s, violence was largely confined to docks and few industrial areas. Fighting was largely between dockers, sailors( who carried knives to splice rope) and casual day labourers.
The public houses use to have three bars, public for workmen, saloon for office workers and lounge for ladies. Those who wanted to keep away from potential trouble kept out of rough areas, rough pubs and rough bars. The growth of Non-Conformism and Methodism in industrial areas produced tough law abiding men and greatly reduced murder and muggings; for example South Wales and the mining community.
The violence in Britain was largely involved in men in rough areas fighting but with out knives or weapons so killing was rare. A man was expcted to be able to fight with his fists and using a knife was considered cowardly
Orwell pointed oput one could buy guns from hardwear shops pre 1917.
There were razor gangs of the 1950s but the blade was largely covered in tape so though victims were slashed , they were not stabbed and either killed or had life changing injuries.
The lower orders were not seen as inherently criminal as the Squire grew up with them. Until about late 18th century, servants often ate with their employers in rural areas. The very formal , multi course meals is largely a product of post 1850s upper middle class urban households. Historically landowner and labourer served together in militia and played cricket together for the village team. People from all walks of life watched cricket, horse racing and bare knuckle boxing up to the 1840s.
Until recently British police did not have to wear stab proof vests, carry Tazers and CS spray.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Excellent peice of potted history thanks Charles

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

Thank GM Trevelyan and A Bryant who was Attlee’s, Wilson’s and Thatcher’s favourite historian.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

Thank GM Trevelyan and A Bryant who was Attlee’s, Wilson’s and Thatcher’s favourite historian.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Excellent peice of potted history thanks Charles

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Look at coroners reports from 1300 . Britain was very peaceful in rural areas.
Steve Pinker has looked at the murder rate over the centuries. In England the murder rate in about 1300 was about a quarter of that of Italy. yet England and wales was heavily armed.
Ever since 1182 when a Royal Ordnance commanded every home had a spear. By 1300 English and Welsh men were trained to use long bow, quarter staff, sword and dagger plus were trained in bare knuckle boxing. Hence victories in 100 Years war.
There was violence on roads post Civil War but most villages were safe. There was constable who if raised the hue and cry had to assisted by those men between the ages of 15 and 60 and if they did not, were fined.Pre 1800 violence was largely in in rookeries. The introduction of gin in the rookeries produced problems as shown by the cartoons.
The growth of slums in new towns post 1800 caused problems such as over crowding, incest, rape which but the establishment of Metropolitan Police greatly reduced murder . The new town corporations built houses, public baths, schools, hospitals, etc to reduce the problems of over crowding in the slums.
Post 1850s, violence was largely confined to docks and few industrial areas. Fighting was largely between dockers, sailors( who carried knives to splice rope) and casual day labourers.
The public houses use to have three bars, public for workmen, saloon for office workers and lounge for ladies. Those who wanted to keep away from potential trouble kept out of rough areas, rough pubs and rough bars. The growth of Non-Conformism and Methodism in industrial areas produced tough law abiding men and greatly reduced murder and muggings; for example South Wales and the mining community.
The violence in Britain was largely involved in men in rough areas fighting but with out knives or weapons so killing was rare. A man was expcted to be able to fight with his fists and using a knife was considered cowardly
Orwell pointed oput one could buy guns from hardwear shops pre 1917.
There were razor gangs of the 1950s but the blade was largely covered in tape so though victims were slashed , they were not stabbed and either killed or had life changing injuries.
The lower orders were not seen as inherently criminal as the Squire grew up with them. Until about late 18th century, servants often ate with their employers in rural areas. The very formal , multi course meals is largely a product of post 1850s upper middle class urban households. Historically landowner and labourer served together in militia and played cricket together for the village team. People from all walks of life watched cricket, horse racing and bare knuckle boxing up to the 1840s.
Until recently British police did not have to wear stab proof vests, carry Tazers and CS spray.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

That is obviously a very complicated question. I assume- maybe wrongly- that given the racialised nature of the article and accompanying comments, you are positing, (whilst avoiding quite saying), that the difference is the increase in the proportion of ‘black people’.
It’s a pretty well evidenced fact that violent crime in Britain has decreased considerably in the last couple of centuries. In 1780, you would carry a small sword or gun when travelling no matter what your class. Gangs ruled the roads. How many black Britons were there then? Very few. So the reasons must logically have been social and economic, not ethnic. The cause then would have been put as ‘class’- the ‘lower’ classes were generally seen by their ‘betters’ as inherently ‘criminal’. Do you agree with that?
Rape, incest, wife-beating and the almost universal abuse of servants was unquestioned then, too. Was this ok? Who knows. Was rape, incest and wife-beating more prevalent in the good old days of the ’50’s- almost certainly. Was that better than now? Who knows…

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Blimey 40 odd down ticks for making an observation based on real experience. Says something about Unherd readers.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Fit in. Abondoning traditions, mores and customs from one’s home country which are not compatible with the host country. Loyalty to this country other one’s country of origin. Not taking parting in criminal activity and reporting those who do, even one’s closest family.
Changing one’s attitude to life where required. An example would be a German Jewish person decorated for bravery for fighting for Germany in WW1 who then fights bravely for the Allies against Nazi Germany.
No 3 troop x Troop for example..
No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando – Wikipedia
Jewish members of the X troop were allowed to change their name to British ones to afford some protection if captured. Others refused to the offer because they wanted to know that there were Jews who were prepared to die fighting the Nazis.
It should be remembered immigrants can bring in conflcits from their home country. An example would be the conflctst between Hindus and Muslims in Leicester due to communal problems in India. Just because someone works for the NHS it does not mean they do not support customs, mores and traditions in conflict with those in Britain.Examples would be members of Tablighi Jamaat and those who support FGM. If one cannot understand the language of people talking one cannot know what they are saying.
The French have a saying ” Someone can be loyal with their stomach but not their heart.”

c donnellan
c donnellan
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

You can’t ‘fit in ‘when fundamentally incompatible with the people and society you now live amongst. Repatriation is a far better alternative along with as crazy as it sounds out here to some, halting all further immigration, with few exceptions.

c donnellan
c donnellan
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

You can’t ‘fit in ‘when fundamentally incompatible with the people and society you now live amongst. Repatriation is a far better alternative along with as crazy as it sounds out here to some, halting all further immigration, with few exceptions.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

huh ! whats with all the downvotes – i must be getting senile and missed some outrageous attitude here ?????

c donnellan
c donnellan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Most people flee ‘diversity.’ Only ideologues embrace it.

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Well said. Real life is only rarely represented in the media (social media included).

Frank Winter
Frank Winter
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Now look at the exploding crime in Europe. Where does it go up most? In all the countries that embraced “diversity”.
There are not just a few loons. There are places in French, Swedish, German cities where they built their own parallel societies and make no effort to assimilate. It goes so far that some politicians in Germany said that there is no German culture and that importing legions of people who live in mud huts enriches society.
I spent 13 years on the beat in a large European city and from there I know you’re just tossing about empty buzzwords and talking points. Go out in the streets instead of hiding in a hospital and look at reality.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I suspect Peter D is right and you are not on this one. The welfare state was always an exclusive form of solidarity. It depends on a high level of mutual identification – a ‘we identity’. This creates a tension between the rate of immigration, the diversity of the populace – and the rate of integration….which creates the capacity for mutual identification. We are about to enter a period of systemic low/now growth. Without growth, fiscal transfers for welfare decline precipitously….and the capacity of the market to cover over the cracks will evaporate. ….And in such circumstances, the countries most diverse, least integrated and with the greatest propensity for linguistic/cultural ghettos….are most likely to lapse into sectarian tribalism

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

This is the kind of disingenuous rubbish that makes immigrants like me sick of the “pro-immigration” camp.

A typical football crowd in Britain is almost entirely white and shares exactly the same beliefs as the general population in terms of religion, law, culture, treatment of women or gays etc.

Clinical staff are utterly unrepresentative of the immigrant cohorts in Britain. Most immigrants, especially the illegal sort coming in increasingly, are much lower educated and skilled.

And furthermore, even a lot of educated migrants differ significantly in culture. I know of at least three educated migrants who refuse to shake women’s hands, and several who have openly hardline views about other religions, gender equality, look down upon British culture….how many football fans would be the same?

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

How does knife crime in the last decade compare to the 1950s in south London?A few years ago doctors in South London hospitals went public about the very high levels of knife crime.
South London was much poorer in the 1950s, there was extensive bomb damage. Millions of men had been trained to kill using bayonets and commando knives and hundreds of thousands had done so in combat; yet managed to restrain themselves from using knives in arguments. Yet today some males, largely from ethnic minorities lack this self control; why?
The poverty experienced by the poor in the 1930s Depression was far worse than anything today so why was the knife crime not higher then?

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Blimey 40 odd down ticks for making an observation based on real experience. Says something about Unherd readers.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Fit in. Abondoning traditions, mores and customs from one’s home country which are not compatible with the host country. Loyalty to this country other one’s country of origin. Not taking parting in criminal activity and reporting those who do, even one’s closest family.
Changing one’s attitude to life where required. An example would be a German Jewish person decorated for bravery for fighting for Germany in WW1 who then fights bravely for the Allies against Nazi Germany.
No 3 troop x Troop for example..
No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando – Wikipedia
Jewish members of the X troop were allowed to change their name to British ones to afford some protection if captured. Others refused to the offer because they wanted to know that there were Jews who were prepared to die fighting the Nazis.
It should be remembered immigrants can bring in conflcits from their home country. An example would be the conflctst between Hindus and Muslims in Leicester due to communal problems in India. Just because someone works for the NHS it does not mean they do not support customs, mores and traditions in conflict with those in Britain.Examples would be members of Tablighi Jamaat and those who support FGM. If one cannot understand the language of people talking one cannot know what they are saying.
The French have a saying ” Someone can be loyal with their stomach but not their heart.”

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

huh ! whats with all the downvotes – i must be getting senile and missed some outrageous attitude here ?????

c donnellan
c donnellan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Most people flee ‘diversity.’ Only ideologues embrace it.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

“You/Jews will not replace us”. Remember that chant? It was well-publicized in 2017.

Katalin (Melbourne)
Katalin (Melbourne)
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

In 2017, white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia iterated the slogan in their shouts of “You/Jews will not replace us!”

Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/new-surge-support-replacement-theory-rhetoric Last accessed: 4 Jan 2023

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Naughty. 6 slaps across the wrist for saying uncomfortable things.

Katalin (Melbourne)
Katalin (Melbourne)
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

In 2017, white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia iterated the slogan in their shouts of “You/Jews will not replace us!”

Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/new-surge-support-replacement-theory-rhetoric Last accessed: 4 Jan 2023

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Naughty. 6 slaps across the wrist for saying uncomfortable things.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

Well if a 100 fellas near Lake Garda are chanting such slogans we must all in be in trouble!
What utter tosh. Ever been to a football match and listened to the sort of tribal chanting that goes on? If one took it that seriously we’d be living in a country with hundreds of separately governed principalities.
Just back from a nights work in a hospital – where the clinical staff are overwhelming immigrants or the children of immigrants. ‘Not making an effort to fit in’? Of course they’ll be a few loons, but what do you suggest fitting in looks like?
Young people, much more likely I strongly suspect, to find your views repugnant in part because they’ve grown up with much more diversity than we did and hence see the real people rather than the labels.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

“You/Jews will not replace us”. Remember that chant? It was well-publicized in 2017.

Peter D
Peter D
1 year ago

When it comes to Europe, migrants are not making an effort to fit in but expect the Europeans to accept them as they are living in and off Europe with little to no respect for the locals.
Last year in Italy, at Lake Guarda I believe, over a hundred African men started chanting “This here is Africa!” Over and over again. If white people were to do the same, there would be an outrage.
Which sums up the sad reality, only white people as a collective can be guilty of crimes, be it slavery or colonialism; only white people should be held accountable.
This attitude is the reason that young people are radicalising. Stop the blame, stop the quotas, and you stop the white nationalists because white people have a long history of being accepting of others.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

“A few nobodies”
Exactly.

Jane Anderson
Jane Anderson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

He used the word ‘racialise’ not ‘radicalise’……

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So on one hand, a group of disgruntled losers became a mortal threat to democracy on Jan 6. And the new #1 threat for the FBI, being classified as domestic terrorists.
Yet the same group is now nothing but a tribe of “lost penguins” in this article. Which is it? Can’t be both.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

You’re correct, and the riot on Jan 6th was played up for political reasons by the government in order to smear the opposition, a tactic that appeared to be reasonably successful for them after the recent elections.
Anybody who saw the footage of that prat who labels himself a shaman wandering round could see there was no mortal threat

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

You’re correct, and the riot on Jan 6th was played up for political reasons by the government in order to smear the opposition, a tactic that appeared to be reasonably successful for them after the recent elections.
Anybody who saw the footage of that prat who labels himself a shaman wandering round could see there was no mortal threat

Elizabeth dSJ
Elizabeth dSJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

People like you and Malcolm are why I now shrug my shoulders at accusations of racism, white nationalism, and white supremacy.
The later term, despite its literal connotation, of course means any form of white self-respect, self-determination, or collective advocacy.
You are ultimately anti-white because those positions are rarely stigmatized in non-whites.
And contrary to your petty dismissal, I am a mother with a graduate-level STEM background.
As far as I am concerned, ‘racial equality’ is not just a failed ideal, but was always a Trojan Horse for anti-white radicalism.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Elizabeth dSJ

Your opinion of me is miles off love, if you think I was calling you or anybody else a white supremacist. I’m white, working class and fairly conservative in my outlook, although leaning slightly left economically. However I hold the woke and the online “own the libs” right with equal disdain, I think they’re both a bunch of simpletons who need to get off social media and go for a pint with people who have no interest in the culture wars

Last edited 1 year ago by Billy Bob
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Elizabeth dSJ

Your opinion of me is miles off love, if you think I was calling you or anybody else a white supremacist. I’m white, working class and fairly conservative in my outlook, although leaning slightly left economically. However I hold the woke and the online “own the libs” right with equal disdain, I think they’re both a bunch of simpletons who need to get off social media and go for a pint with people who have no interest in the culture wars

Last edited 1 year ago by Billy Bob
Rukawa Kaede
Rukawa Kaede
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Hitler was a failed art student. He was a nobody largely with fantasies of being some grand gentlemen artist with pretty women who loved him from a far. That’s literally what he used to fantasize about. And yet…
In a normal functional world Hitler should never have taken over a country. When elites take a country and completely destroy it then people start listening to losers like Hitler or Napoleon because the winners have done a horrible job of managing things.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Perhaps we draw different conclusions from the article. I disagree with the author – I don’t think that “the backlash is already here” and triflingly mild. I think we are at the very beginning of a transition to something quite different and likely dangerous.
Trump, Brexit, a shift of Europe towards being more conservative, are all being caused by a fear (often very real) of local people being swamped by outside cultures.
As mass migration accelerates I don’t see any of these trends dissipating, particularly not as a recession grips the globe and forces more of these tensions to the surface, and particularly as Africa will add 3 billion new people to the planet by 2100.
I do hope the author is correct, but the history of identity politics suggests that polarising society around identity almost always leads to the same outcome: division, hatred, and, in the worst cases, war and murder.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

“A few nobodies”
Exactly.

Jane Anderson
Jane Anderson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

He used the word ‘racialise’ not ‘radicalise’……

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So on one hand, a group of disgruntled losers became a mortal threat to democracy on Jan 6. And the new #1 threat for the FBI, being classified as domestic terrorists.
Yet the same group is now nothing but a tribe of “lost penguins” in this article. Which is it? Can’t be both.

Elizabeth dSJ
Elizabeth dSJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

People like you and Malcolm are why I now shrug my shoulders at accusations of racism, white nationalism, and white supremacy.
The later term, despite its literal connotation, of course means any form of white self-respect, self-determination, or collective advocacy.
You are ultimately anti-white because those positions are rarely stigmatized in non-whites.
And contrary to your petty dismissal, I am a mother with a graduate-level STEM background.
As far as I am concerned, ‘racial equality’ is not just a failed ideal, but was always a Trojan Horse for anti-white radicalism.

Rukawa Kaede
Rukawa Kaede
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Hitler was a failed art student. He was a nobody largely with fantasies of being some grand gentlemen artist with pretty women who loved him from a far. That’s literally what he used to fantasize about. And yet…
In a normal functional world Hitler should never have taken over a country. When elites take a country and completely destroy it then people start listening to losers like Hitler or Napoleon because the winners have done a horrible job of managing things.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

White nationalists were around long before all the “woke” stuff. The KKK was started in the 19th century and committing its horrors in the mid 20th century. I’m not a “woke” activist, but this can’t be blamed on them.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago

Linda – Groups like the KKK were dissipated largely by three things (to my osbervation):

First – the reality that genetic studies didn’t support racial supremacy theories and

Second, the movement in the 1960s by Martin Luther King et al, who pushed for “content of character” over racial identification.

Finally – the reality of what transpired in Nazi Germany, as a horrifying endpoint to racial thinking.

By my hypothesis it was these ideas that caused a decline in real racism.
And it is a branch of the left who have done their best to resurrect this thinking under the banner of “anti racism” since the 1960s.
In 1988, Michael Jackson’s “Black or White” came out, with the hook phrase, “It don’t matter if you’re black or white”
Today such a song would be immediately cancelled for lacking racial consciousness.
That’s how far we’ve come in the last 30 years.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

‘First – the reality that genetic studies didn’t support racial supremacy theories’
Correct. Have you noticed that the fastest runners in the world are almost always Black?
And IQ measurements consistently put East Asians as having a higher average IQ than white people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steven Carr
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

You have no way of being able to untangle genetic and environmental factors in the Asian observation you make.
I personally suspect there are geographical variations in genetics that give some groups advantages over others.
But it is very unlikely that these would correlate with notions of race. What is “black” to an American, for example, usually is genetically very far from being genetically black (In fact, that someone like Colin Powell could have been considered black, even though he was likely 10% African, is proof enough that “race” is often a meaningless term when discussing genetics.

Far more helpful is to discuss specific geographies where specific genes have been concentrated.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Like a pure-bred Fatherland of some kind?

LEON STEPHENS
LEON STEPHENS
1 year ago

As someone pointed out, the star African runners in recent times have been Ethiopians who live in highlands where running is something many young men do to get from one place to another fast: when they descend to sea level, they have a big advantage, because they now have more oxygen to fill their expanded lungs, over those who live in lowlands. Secondly, the other group of champion runners have come from the Caribbean. There are few or no Olympic gold medallists from West Africa. So “black” is a generalization that’s meaningless in this instance. And in fact, like “white”, it’s worse than meaningless in all instances, because if you look in the mirror and at photographs of human beings, you will find that you are not and nobody is the color of a sheet of high-quality typing paper, or of a clouded over night sky without the presence of the moon.
Black & White are racist terms invented for the purpose of portraying Africans and Europeans as total antithesis, night and day, good and evil – and of course this second dichotomy can be turned around, as it’s been done in recent times.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  LEON STEPHENS

Couldn’t agree more

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  LEON STEPHENS

Exactly. There is more genetic variation between an East African ‘black’ person and a West African ‘black’ person, than there is between a European ‘white’ person and an East African ‘black’ person.
Anyone who talks about genetics in relation to ‘ethnic’ human differences is talking simple-minded bilge.

c donnellan
c donnellan
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Those who deny any significant genetic component to human difference are outright liars for political, ideological, or religious reasons.

c donnellan
c donnellan
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Those who deny any significant genetic component to human difference are outright liars for political, ideological, or religious reasons.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  LEON STEPHENS

Couldn’t agree more

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  LEON STEPHENS

Exactly. There is more genetic variation between an East African ‘black’ person and a West African ‘black’ person, than there is between a European ‘white’ person and an East African ‘black’ person.
Anyone who talks about genetics in relation to ‘ethnic’ human differences is talking simple-minded bilge.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Like a pure-bred Fatherland of some kind?

LEON STEPHENS
LEON STEPHENS
1 year ago

As someone pointed out, the star African runners in recent times have been Ethiopians who live in highlands where running is something many young men do to get from one place to another fast: when they descend to sea level, they have a big advantage, because they now have more oxygen to fill their expanded lungs, over those who live in lowlands. Secondly, the other group of champion runners have come from the Caribbean. There are few or no Olympic gold medallists from West Africa. So “black” is a generalization that’s meaningless in this instance. And in fact, like “white”, it’s worse than meaningless in all instances, because if you look in the mirror and at photographs of human beings, you will find that you are not and nobody is the color of a sheet of high-quality typing paper, or of a clouded over night sky without the presence of the moon.
Black & White are racist terms invented for the purpose of portraying Africans and Europeans as total antithesis, night and day, good and evil – and of course this second dichotomy can be turned around, as it’s been done in recent times.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

You have no way of being able to untangle genetic and environmental factors in the Asian observation you make.
I personally suspect there are geographical variations in genetics that give some groups advantages over others.
But it is very unlikely that these would correlate with notions of race. What is “black” to an American, for example, usually is genetically very far from being genetically black (In fact, that someone like Colin Powell could have been considered black, even though he was likely 10% African, is proof enough that “race” is often a meaningless term when discussing genetics.

Far more helpful is to discuss specific geographies where specific genes have been concentrated.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

‘First – the reality that genetic studies didn’t support racial supremacy theories’
Correct. Have you noticed that the fastest runners in the world are almost always Black?
And IQ measurements consistently put East Asians as having a higher average IQ than white people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steven Carr
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Half of the modern Klan is FBI informants. Most of the other half is FBI employees.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Most ‘Woke people are actually actors working for Donald Trump. Donald Trump is working for the Democrats, Biden is working for the KKK, who in turn are all working for Walmart.
It’s great making up crap, isn’t it? Saves actually having to think.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

What are you blathering about? Go read up on the FBI’s COINTELPRO programme which was leaked in 1971 instead of accusing me of conspiracy lunacy.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

What are you blathering about? Go read up on the FBI’s COINTELPRO programme which was leaked in 1971 instead of accusing me of conspiracy lunacy.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Most ‘Woke people are actually actors working for Donald Trump. Donald Trump is working for the Democrats, Biden is working for the KKK, who in turn are all working for Walmart.
It’s great making up crap, isn’t it? Saves actually having to think.

Kate S
Kate S
1 year ago

Wasn’t the KKK born out of the Democrat Party in the US?
The same party that calls itself woke and is hell bent to re-racialising society today?

Last edited 1 year ago by Kate S
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate S

It was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party after they lost the Civil War.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

History lost in over-simplification. The KKK arose from the disorder caused by the carpetbaggers (profiteers) from the North who had descended on the prostrate South. Whereas the southern Whigs (proto-Republicans) did not support slavery, the KKK coincided with the Democrat Party, which in default of slavery championed segregation. Like the vigilantes of San Francisco a few decades later, it was an understandable if brutal response to civil disorder, which soon outlived any justification for its existence. It wound up an embarrassment to most of the South at best, and at worst as ironically a sort of White Black Hand semi-crooked band of losers and thugs. Hollywood has done its best to make it loom larger than ever it did in actual life.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

History lost in over-simplification. The KKK arose from the disorder caused by the carpetbaggers (profiteers) from the North who had descended on the prostrate South. Whereas the southern Whigs (proto-Republicans) did not support slavery, the KKK coincided with the Democrat Party, which in default of slavery championed segregation. Like the vigilantes of San Francisco a few decades later, it was an understandable if brutal response to civil disorder, which soon outlived any justification for its existence. It wound up an embarrassment to most of the South at best, and at worst as ironically a sort of White Black Hand semi-crooked band of losers and thugs. Hollywood has done its best to make it loom larger than ever it did in actual life.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate S

It was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party after they lost the Civil War.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

Of course it can. Racial identity politics begets racial identity politics, as night follows day.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Thank you for this note of “likeable” sanity on a reactionary-riddled comments board.

Harvey Mushman
Harvey Mushman
1 year ago

And the KKK were Leftists… Southern Democrats. Funny how the media usually conveniently omits those facts….

bung bung
bung bung
1 year ago
Reply to  Harvey Mushman

Hahaha!. The kkk were not leftists.
The democratic and republican parties were the opposite of what they are today. platforms and support bases were reversed back then. Democrats were largely southern based, slave supporting, and anti big federal government. whereas the republicans were pro big government, big business, and north east based (also slave supporting but less-so). Abe Lincoln was a republican who passed the civil rights act. So the KKK may have technically been born out of the Democratic Party, but their lineage and scumbag base continued to become what you know as republicans today

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

For Christ’s sake, Bung, don’t confuse these half-baked internet warriors with history or thought. It just upsets them.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I repeated this quote of George Wallis, a leading segregationist in the ’60’s, elsewhere here, but just in case any of them have learned to read in the meantime;
“I am an Alabama Democrat, not a National Democrat. I am not kin to those folks. The difference between a National Democrat and an Alabama Democrat is like the difference between a Communist and an anti-Communist.” 1966.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

*Ahem*. The name was Wallace, Mr. Historian.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

But it’s only the difference between a Scottish rebel and a Baltimore courtesan.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

But it’s only the difference between a Scottish rebel and a Baltimore courtesan.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

*Ahem*. The name was Wallace, Mr. Historian.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I repeated this quote of George Wallis, a leading segregationist in the ’60’s, elsewhere here, but just in case any of them have learned to read in the meantime;
“I am an Alabama Democrat, not a National Democrat. I am not kin to those folks. The difference between a National Democrat and an Alabama Democrat is like the difference between a Communist and an anti-Communist.” 1966.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

Half right. Democrats were the liberals back then as they are today, only liberals of the time were racist. Southern Democrats were a special breed since they didn’t want to associate with the Republicans (who aligned with the then conservative north-eastern establishment), they had to support the Democrats. Once Kennedy got elected and discovered he could utilise minority, in particular black, vote kickstarting the Civil Rights era, they got disillusioned with Democrats and following Nixon’s embrace of them, they switched allegience.

Last edited 1 year ago by Emre S
E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

“Abe Lincoln passed the civil rights act”? That statement is such a howler in terms of American History, it prefigures the bizarre assertions with which you conclude. You might reconsider employing vulgarity in this forum, both because it is infra dig and also because it is such a giveaway of inappropriate emotional investment.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

For Christ’s sake, Bung, don’t confuse these half-baked internet warriors with history or thought. It just upsets them.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

Half right. Democrats were the liberals back then as they are today, only liberals of the time were racist. Southern Democrats were a special breed since they didn’t want to associate with the Republicans (who aligned with the then conservative north-eastern establishment), they had to support the Democrats. Once Kennedy got elected and discovered he could utilise minority, in particular black, vote kickstarting the Civil Rights era, they got disillusioned with Democrats and following Nixon’s embrace of them, they switched allegience.

Last edited 1 year ago by Emre S
E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

“Abe Lincoln passed the civil rights act”? That statement is such a howler in terms of American History, it prefigures the bizarre assertions with which you conclude. You might reconsider employing vulgarity in this forum, both because it is infra dig and also because it is such a giveaway of inappropriate emotional investment.

bung bung
bung bung
1 year ago
Reply to  Harvey Mushman

Hahaha!. The kkk were not leftists.
The democratic and republican parties were the opposite of what they are today. platforms and support bases were reversed back then. Democrats were largely southern based, slave supporting, and anti big federal government. whereas the republicans were pro big government, big business, and north east based (also slave supporting but less-so). Abe Lincoln was a republican who passed the civil rights act. So the KKK may have technically been born out of the Democratic Party, but their lineage and scumbag base continued to become what you know as republicans today

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago

Linda – Groups like the KKK were dissipated largely by three things (to my osbervation):

First – the reality that genetic studies didn’t support racial supremacy theories and

Second, the movement in the 1960s by Martin Luther King et al, who pushed for “content of character” over racial identification.

Finally – the reality of what transpired in Nazi Germany, as a horrifying endpoint to racial thinking.

By my hypothesis it was these ideas that caused a decline in real racism.
And it is a branch of the left who have done their best to resurrect this thinking under the banner of “anti racism” since the 1960s.
In 1988, Michael Jackson’s “Black or White” came out, with the hook phrase, “It don’t matter if you’re black or white”
Today such a song would be immediately cancelled for lacking racial consciousness.
That’s how far we’ve come in the last 30 years.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Half of the modern Klan is FBI informants. Most of the other half is FBI employees.

Kate S
Kate S
1 year ago

Wasn’t the KKK born out of the Democrat Party in the US?
The same party that calls itself woke and is hell bent to re-racialising society today?

Last edited 1 year ago by Kate S
Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

Of course it can. Racial identity politics begets racial identity politics, as night follows day.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Thank you for this note of “likeable” sanity on a reactionary-riddled comments board.

Harvey Mushman
Harvey Mushman
1 year ago

And the KKK were Leftists… Southern Democrats. Funny how the media usually conveniently omits those facts….

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Could you explain your reference to 1930’s Germany, in the context of ‘Wokism’?
In my naivety, I thought that Hitler’s extreme white nationalism and anti-Semitism (a centuries-old, festering European sore) was the driving force of the Holocaust- you seem to be suggesting it was what- “demonising” white people? Interesting…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

By the way, was America “racialised” during the years of Southern segregation?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Did you notice the skin colour of the soldiers who brought down the “white nationalists” of 1930s-1945 Germany? Or those who ended slavery in USA 1865?

And can you explain the absence of anything similar in say the Arab world, which is rife with supremacism, long running slave trade, anti-Semitism?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

What on earth has “the skin colour” of the allied fighters against Nazi Germany have to do with anything whatsover?
The main victims of the Nazis were Jews- the great majority of whom were murdered. Are you saying Jews wanted nazi Germany to continue?? That only white people can be anti-Nazi? What the hell ARE you saying here?
Aside from the fact that plenty of Indians fought with the British, and there were many African American soldiers, your post is utterly bizaare.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You were the one to talk about “extreme white nationalism” not Mr.
The Jewish victims of the Fuhrer were also white, incidentally. As were the Poles and Russians (over 20 mn dead), was that also extreme white nationalism?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I have never referred to Nazism as “white nationalism”- its ideology is based on a belief in the racial superiority of northern European genetics- what they termed (wrongly, as it happens) as Aryans. Nazis did NOT regard Jews as “white”, as they regarded them as from the `middle east, and as racial vermin..
Yes, millions of Poles and Russians died in the war- not by racial extermination, but because Germany invaded their countries. And Russians were Communist- a Marxist-Jewish conspiracy. Britons and white Americans died in the war too- their race was irrelevant.
When did people stop studying history? It is idiotic to have to explain this to an adult.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I have never referred to Nazism as “white nationalism”- its ideology is based on a belief in the racial superiority of northern European genetics- what they termed (wrongly, as it happens) as Aryans. Nazis did NOT regard Jews as “white”, as they regarded them as from the `middle east, and as racial vermin..
Yes, millions of Poles and Russians died in the war- not by racial extermination, but because Germany invaded their countries. And Russians were Communist- a Marxist-Jewish conspiracy. Britons and white Americans died in the war too- their race was irrelevant.
When did people stop studying history? It is idiotic to have to explain this to an adult.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No the main victims of the Nazis were Russian.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You were the one to talk about “extreme white nationalism” not Mr.
The Jewish victims of the Fuhrer were also white, incidentally. As were the Poles and Russians (over 20 mn dead), was that also extreme white nationalism?

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No the main victims of the Nazis were Russian.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

What on earth has “the skin colour” of the allied fighters against Nazi Germany have to do with anything whatsover?
The main victims of the Nazis were Jews- the great majority of whom were murdered. Are you saying Jews wanted nazi Germany to continue?? That only white people can be anti-Nazi? What the hell ARE you saying here?
Aside from the fact that plenty of Indians fought with the British, and there were many African American soldiers, your post is utterly bizaare.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John – In my view there are substantial parallels between woke thinking and 1930s German thinking. For example:
One: The belief that people are defined by the group that they belong to, and not by their individual traits. Woke thinkers believe that being white marks you out as being morally depraved in much the same way that being Jewish did in 1930s Germany.

Two: the belief that disparities in outcome between groups is proof of conspiracy against a chosen group. Woke people attribute to “whiteness” the same oppressive power that Germans attributed to Jewishness – ie both belief systems attribute disparities in outcome to an evil oppressor group, ignoring all alternative non-racial theories.

Three: Both Woke people and 1930s Germans believed that the state should intervene in order to correct imbalances in outcome – in both cases adherents to the belief system empower the state to do this “rebalancing”.

Four: Both belief systems rest on biological essentialism.1930s Germans believed that the behaviour of Jews was determined by their genetics, such that they could not be cured of their malevolent tendencies by being raised by German families (hence extermination being a grimly logical outcome). Wokeists, in the same way, believe that whiteness confers genetically incurable malevolence on white people (they will often argue that race is a construct while simultaneously advancing policies and beliefs entrenched in obvious biological essentialism).
I could go on, but the above are 4 main parallels.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Among the nonsense that is posted on these pages this truly takes the cake! I have rarely seen such nonsense. If yo actually believe a single word of this then I suggest you seek urgent psychological treatment.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Perhaps Graeme you would like to point out why I am wrong? I am genuinely intrigued to know.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Easy.
This is obviously complete nonsense:
“Woke thinkers believe that being white marks you out as being morally depraved in much the same way that being Jewish did in 1930s Germany”
Define “woke thinker”.
Who has said that being white is “morally depraved”?
How are white people being treated similarly to Jews in 1930s Germany? Give specific examples.
That’s plenty of homework for you for now. Let’s see what you’ve got..

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Also…Who’s closer to a Nazi: A woke identitarian who imagines Themself anti-racist or an avowed white supremacist who wants to take “his” country back?

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Ibrahim X Kendi and Robyn Di Angelo, as two commonly quoted woke “scholars”, both say that ALL white people are racist. In each situation they don’t ask whether racism exists, but ask, instead, “how it manifests”. In other words, the existence of racism is taken as a given.
If all white people are inherently racist, how are they then not innately morally depraved?

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

So you can’t define “woke”? Didn’t think so. But you have decided that you will now misquote two obscure academics and twist their words so you can then make the leap from “inherently racist” to “morally depraved”? I took great amusement in watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself with these comical attempts to justify your own nonsense – thanks for that!
I note that you didn’t even try to justify your ludicrous suggestion that white people are being treated similarly to Jews in 1930s Germany. Even with your tortured attempts to twist words I doubt you could come up with anything to support that.
Would you like some more homework or have had enough humiliation?

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“All white people are racist” is exactly what DiAngelo writes in “White Fragility”. I am not misrepresenting her at all.
Here is a definition of woke thinking, or should I call it “Orwellian double-thinking”:
Race is just a construct but white people are uniquely racist
Gender is just a construct but men are uniquely malevolent
All cultures are equal but Western culture is uniquely bad
White people and men have moral agency, but minorities and women are forced to behave badly by systemic forces beyond their control.
Judging people by the content of their character is racist
Holding non-white people to the same moral standard as white people is racist
Disparities in outcome that support our narrative are proof of racism/sexism, disparities that don’t are irrelevant.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I don’t disagree with the basis of your assertion- that there’s a fundamental confusion amongst the academic progressive left in the US at the moment, as to whether ‘race’ is a construct or a biological fact (as with gender)- but you are ignoring a remarkably exact analogue here on the other side.
How many commenters here have ranted against the ‘racialisation’ of everything by the ‘woke’, the manipulative introduction of ‘race’ into the pure, colour-blind fact of US society, whilst also ranting about “us’ (assuming everyone reading this site is white), “fighting back” against “them”, not being ‘allowed’ to “live amongst our own kind’ (meaning what- humans? Not ‘white folk’, surely?).
And yet these ‘racialised’ (to use a nice euphemism) opinions get no “pushback” (unlike drunk black women in bars), just upticks. Not to mention the very popular “I’m a white supremacist” post. Not one of the ‘we don’t like racialisation’ gang had any problem with him. Did you? It didn’t seem so. Why?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I don’t disagree with the basis of your assertion- that there’s a fundamental confusion amongst the academic progressive left in the US at the moment, as to whether ‘race’ is a construct or a biological fact (as with gender)- but you are ignoring a remarkably exact analogue here on the other side.
How many commenters here have ranted against the ‘racialisation’ of everything by the ‘woke’, the manipulative introduction of ‘race’ into the pure, colour-blind fact of US society, whilst also ranting about “us’ (assuming everyone reading this site is white), “fighting back” against “them”, not being ‘allowed’ to “live amongst our own kind’ (meaning what- humans? Not ‘white folk’, surely?).
And yet these ‘racialised’ (to use a nice euphemism) opinions get no “pushback” (unlike drunk black women in bars), just upticks. Not to mention the very popular “I’m a white supremacist” post. Not one of the ‘we don’t like racialisation’ gang had any problem with him. Did you? It didn’t seem so. Why?

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“All white people are racist” is exactly what DiAngelo writes in “White Fragility”. I am not misrepresenting her at all.
Here is a definition of woke thinking, or should I call it “Orwellian double-thinking”:
Race is just a construct but white people are uniquely racist
Gender is just a construct but men are uniquely malevolent
All cultures are equal but Western culture is uniquely bad
White people and men have moral agency, but minorities and women are forced to behave badly by systemic forces beyond their control.
Judging people by the content of their character is racist
Holding non-white people to the same moral standard as white people is racist
Disparities in outcome that support our narrative are proof of racism/sexism, disparities that don’t are irrelevant.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

So you can’t define “woke”? Didn’t think so. But you have decided that you will now misquote two obscure academics and twist their words so you can then make the leap from “inherently racist” to “morally depraved”? I took great amusement in watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself with these comical attempts to justify your own nonsense – thanks for that!
I note that you didn’t even try to justify your ludicrous suggestion that white people are being treated similarly to Jews in 1930s Germany. Even with your tortured attempts to twist words I doubt you could come up with anything to support that.
Would you like some more homework or have had enough humiliation?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“Define “woke thinker”.”
An authoritarian pseudo-progressive who calls him/herself a liberal.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Also…Who’s closer to a Nazi: A woke identitarian who imagines Themself anti-racist or an avowed white supremacist who wants to take “his” country back?

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Ibrahim X Kendi and Robyn Di Angelo, as two commonly quoted woke “scholars”, both say that ALL white people are racist. In each situation they don’t ask whether racism exists, but ask, instead, “how it manifests”. In other words, the existence of racism is taken as a given.
If all white people are inherently racist, how are they then not innately morally depraved?

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“Define “woke thinker”.”
An authoritarian pseudo-progressive who calls him/herself a liberal.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Nazi ideology:
Women should be homemakers, should be subordinate to their husbands, and should have as many children as possible if they are ‘pure’ Aryan.
Homosexuals are depraved perverts who should be imprisoned.
Communists are a corrupt threat, internationalist rats who disseminate a Jewish-Bolshevic corrupting disease of the Nation.
Nation is to be promoted above all. The triumph of the German Nation is the supreme Good, supported by the ideal of the Aryan family, headed by the Father.
The northern European races are biologically superior to all others, and must defeat the lesser races. (You may think ‘Woke’ ideology believes this AGAINST whites, but this is your fervid imagination. Nation Of Islam, yes- but find me a contemporary quote from ‘Wokists’ claiming this- you can’t, it’s simply fantasist internet nonsense. Nowhere have I ever seen the concept of ‘racial biology’ promoted by the modern US left)
This is all a description of modern US progressives? If it is, most of the people on this site would love them.

Peter D
Peter D
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

That’s because the wokists are guilt ridden white supremacists. They help non-whites and then post about it to show the world that they are not racist.
Next time you are in a woke meeting and you will see them all sitting together, all white, loud and woke.
I’ve been there sitting in between a black woman and a Hispanic man and all 3 of us were thinking WTF!!!!
Liberalism does not work. The migrants put up with it. The first gen love it and the third gen hate it. Speak to people, real people. Racial supremacy is a joke but the reality is that it should not be a crime for people to want to live in a homogeneous community. Have some understanding

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

I can’t wait for my next “woke meeting”!!!!
“Homogenous community”? Why don’t you just say what you really mean?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

I think you should stop going to these things you call “woke meetings”.
I’ve never had to go to one, and whatever they are, it doesn’t sound as if you should be there.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

I can’t wait for my next “woke meeting”!!!!
“Homogenous community”? Why don’t you just say what you really mean?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

I think you should stop going to these things you call “woke meetings”.
I’ve never had to go to one, and whatever they are, it doesn’t sound as if you should be there.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Robyn Di Angelo (on the list of required reading in most agenda driven bullshit degrees) says “all white people are racist” – how would this be possible if they were not biologically different to other races? She doesn’t say, “all white people become racist, but “all white people ARE racist” – ie they are born racist, in much the same way that Jews are born “anti-German”.

Yes, you are correct that the details of the differences exist, but the idea of a polluting “out-group” is uncannily similar.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

You seem to be quite obsessed with this Di Angelo woman. And you think she represents whom exactly? The “woke” group that you are unable to define?
And what is it with this comparison to the Jews in 1930s Germany? Are you expecting to be sent to a concentration camp or have your property stolen? You sound completely demented…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

There will be plenty of wing-nut blogs that will be telling their half-wit followers exactly that. As one of the more swivel-eyed ‘folk’ says here- “social media opened our eyes.”

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

I guess you’re not from the US and have no idea what’s going on there.
nobody is predicting concentration camps, in part because there are still too many white people in western countries. Also, such distasteful measures are unnecessary as people can be adequately controlled via technology and social punishments.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

There will be plenty of wing-nut blogs that will be telling their half-wit followers exactly that. As one of the more swivel-eyed ‘folk’ says here- “social media opened our eyes.”

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

I guess you’re not from the US and have no idea what’s going on there.
nobody is predicting concentration camps, in part because there are still too many white people in western countries. Also, such distasteful measures are unnecessary as people can be adequately controlled via technology and social punishments.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

So just to sum-up-
You’ve found a pretty obscure and nutty academic, and you’ve taken her as some kind of living representative of America’s future. You seem a bit obsessed with her- to the point of pretending that she and her chums are somehow the equivalent of the entire Nazi state.
Just to remind you- this is on a site where most of the comments are entirely supportive of the concept of “taking action”, of “payback”, against “Black trends”, where a self-declared white supremacist gets 20 positive upticks, and a number of people declare (very angrily) that racism is a lie, that it simply doesn’t exist except amongst “Blacks”. Someone got multiple ‘downticks’ for repeating the Founding Fathers’ phrase ‘All men are created equal”, for Christ’s sake.
And yet you bang on and on about this Woke academic as if she were enslaving the US. I think you need to get a little perspective. I don’t like what she says at all- she’s an idiot. But if you want a reminder of why some people think America is racist, try the comments here.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Did you read the comment here demanding the ‘right’ to live in a ‘homogenous’ (i.e., white) neighbourhood? Is that a “Wokist”, or a racist?
They can’t be “Woke”, as everyone here hates the Woke more than anything in the world, they hate them with a seething venom. And it can’t be non-Woke ‘racist’, because, according to the good folk here, such a person does not and cannot exist, except as a Progressive “lie”. So just who is this person? Or the many others here who agree with them? Or the self-described “white supremacist”, who apparently is also an invention of the “MSM”, despite commenting, and being upticked, on unHerd? Is this site a “lie”? Are we ALL made up by the MSM?
Please help me work this out, I’m sure it does all make sense, somehow….

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John your posts are coming across as a little facetious, but I’m going to engage because I can see you’re a well intentioned person who’s probably just feeling exasperated.
Let me make clear my view: I don’t believe that there are inherent biological racial differences that determine group outcomes. There are many actual racists on this site that do believe this. And they are the kind of people who, while believing this, also get outraged if they are accused of being racist, even when they are by the original definition of it.
They are not that different to many on the left though, who likewise believe in biological differences, but who think moral depravity works in the opposite direction.
Nobody would tolerate notions of “black crime”, as though blackness itself were causal for committing crime.
We quite rightly talk about socioeconomic factors that produce crime.
But the woke do not do this with “white privilege” – they don’t attribute white success to correlations with culture, socioeconomics etc, but to whiteness itself – which is why they get enraged when you try to unpack it further – for them it begins and ends with skin colour. You may have a different observation, but I myself have had countless chats with academics involved in this stuff, and they almost to a person think like this – if they didn’t, they would simply not survive the social Darwinism of their modern humanities departments.
There are a large number of tribal thinkers on this site who frustratingly downvote many good counterpoints of people who wish to engage in honest debate (like yourself for example). I’m not one of the down-voters – In fact I will never downvote anything unless the comment is downright abusive or ad hominem.
Di Angelo is not an obscure academic – she is a best selling global superstar whose books are required reading in most humanities departments.
Her views I have heard regurgitated at almost every major University I’ve visited, including Oxford University. It is disturbing to see just how much this “obscure academic” has been embraced in these places.
These students, despite being clearly smart, embrace newspeak and double think in a way that I don’t think even Orwell could have foreseen.
THere are other super star academics like Priyamvada Gopal at Cambridge, who likewise hold these views.
Personally, I believe white supremacists exist. I just don’t believe they are worth taking seriously because they are very few in number and not particularly violent. The term has also been so over-used by a faction of the Left that it has become meaningless, much as Orwell complained of the label “fascist” – an attempt to silence ideas without having to refute them with any kind of evidence or reason.
Such wokists remind me of christian fundamentalists screaming, “satanic!” at everything that conflicts with their ideology.
When actual white supremacists (not people who believe in a points-based immigration policy accused of being as such) start rampaging through streets like Antifa do, and when they get a green light to open law-free zones in city centres with the protection of leftwing city counsellors, then I’ll start worrying that they are a threat.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John your posts are coming across as a little facetious, but I’m going to engage because I can see you’re a well intentioned person who’s probably just feeling exasperated.
Let me make clear my view: I don’t believe that there are inherent biological racial differences that determine group outcomes. There are many actual racists on this site that do believe this. And they are the kind of people who, while believing this, also get outraged if they are accused of being racist, even when they are by the original definition of it.
They are not that different to many on the left though, who likewise believe in biological differences, but who think moral depravity works in the opposite direction.
Nobody would tolerate notions of “black crime”, as though blackness itself were causal for committing crime.
We quite rightly talk about socioeconomic factors that produce crime and we rightly call people racists if they think having a black skin is what makes you commit crime.
But too many of the woke do not apply this thinking to ideas like “white privilege” – they all too often won’t discuss correlations with culture, socioeconomics etc, but instead circle back to the notion of whiteness itself – which is why they get enraged when you try to unpack these issues further or offer nuance – for them it very often begins and ends with skin colour. You may have a different observation. I’ve had countless chats with academics involved in this stuff, and they almost to a person think like this – if they don’t, they simply don’t survive the social Darwinism of their modern humanities departments.
There are a large number of tribal thinkers on this site who frustratingly downvote many good counterpoints of people who wish to engage in honest debate (like yourself for example). I will never downvote anything unless the comment is downright abusive or ad hominem.
Di Angelo is not an obscure academic – she is a best selling global superstar whose books are required reading in most humanities departments.
Her assumptions I have heard regurgitated at almost every major University I’ve visited, including Oxford University. It is disturbing to see just how much her kind of thinking has been embraced in these places.
Students in these institutions, despite being clearly smart, embrace newspeak and double think in a way that I don’t think even Orwell could have foreseen, and which turns their brains to mush.
There are other super star academics like Priyamvada Gopal at Cambridge, who likewise hold such views.
Personally, I believe white supremacists exist. I just don’t believe they are worth taking seriously because they are very few in number and not particularly violent. The term has also been so over-used by a faction of the Left that it has become meaningless, much as Orwell complained of the label “f*scist” – an attempt to silence ideas without having to refute them with any kind of evidence or reason.
Such people remind me of christian fundamentalists screaming, “satanic!” at everything that conflicts with their orthodoxy.
When actual white supremacists (not people who believe in a points-based immigration policy accused of being as such) start rampaging through streets like Antifa do, and when they get a green light to open law-free zones in city centres with the protection of leftwing city counsellors, then I’ll start worrying that they are a threat.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I don’t have time right now to write a proper response- but I do want to say that I agree with a lot of your post, I also disagree with lots, but more importantly, I accept that you are thinking honestly and intelligently about all this, and are writing in good faith.
Yes, I get facetious here- so many posts are deeply dishonest and in very bd faith. Thank you for your thoughts.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I don’t have time right now to write a proper response- but I do want to say that I agree with a lot of your post, I also disagree with lots, but more importantly, I accept that you are thinking honestly and intelligently about all this, and are writing in good faith.
Yes, I get facetious here- so many posts are deeply dishonest and in very bd faith. Thank you for your thoughts.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John your posts are coming across as a little facetious, but I’m going to engage because I can see you’re a well intentioned person who’s probably just feeling exasperated.
Let me make clear my view: I don’t believe that there are inherent biological racial differences that determine group outcomes. There are many actual racists on this site that do believe this. And they are the kind of people who, while believing this, also get outraged if they are accused of being racist, even when they are by the original definition of it.
They are not that different to many on the left though, who likewise believe in biological differences, but who think moral depravity works in the opposite direction.
Nobody would tolerate notions of “black crime”, as though blackness itself were causal for committing crime.
We quite rightly talk about socioeconomic factors that produce crime.
But the woke do not do this with “white privilege” – they don’t attribute white success to correlations with culture, socioeconomics etc, but to whiteness itself – which is why they get enraged when you try to unpack it further – for them it begins and ends with skin colour. You may have a different observation, but I myself have had countless chats with academics involved in this stuff, and they almost to a person think like this – if they didn’t, they would simply not survive the social Darwinism of their modern humanities departments.
There are a large number of tribal thinkers on this site who frustratingly downvote many good counterpoints of people who wish to engage in honest debate (like yourself for example). I’m not one of the down-voters – In fact I will never downvote anything unless the comment is downright abusive or ad hominem.
Di Angelo is not an obscure academic – she is a best selling global superstar whose books are required reading in most humanities departments.
Her views I have heard regurgitated at almost every major University I’ve visited, including Oxford University. It is disturbing to see just how much this “obscure academic” has been embraced in these places.
These students, despite being clearly smart, embrace newspeak and double think in a way that I don’t think even Orwell could have foreseen.
THere are other super star academics like Priyamvada Gopal at Cambridge, who likewise hold these views.
Personally, I believe white supremacists exist. I just don’t believe they are worth taking seriously because they are very few in number and not particularly violent. The term has also been so over-used by a faction of the Left that it has become meaningless, much as Orwell complained of the label “fascist” – an attempt to silence ideas without having to refute them with any kind of evidence or reason.
Such wokists remind me of christian fundamentalists screaming, “satanic!” at everything that conflicts with their ideology.
When actual white supremacists (not people who believe in a points-based immigration policy accused of being as such) start rampaging through streets like Antifa do, and when they get a green light to open law-free zones in city centres with the protection of leftwing city counsellors, then I’ll start worrying that they are a threat.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John your posts are coming across as a little facetious, but I’m going to engage because I can see you’re a well intentioned person who’s probably just feeling exasperated.
Let me make clear my view: I don’t believe that there are inherent biological racial differences that determine group outcomes. There are many actual racists on this site that do believe this. And they are the kind of people who, while believing this, also get outraged if they are accused of being racist, even when they are by the original definition of it.
They are not that different to many on the left though, who likewise believe in biological differences, but who think moral depravity works in the opposite direction.
Nobody would tolerate notions of “black crime”, as though blackness itself were causal for committing crime.
We quite rightly talk about socioeconomic factors that produce crime and we rightly call people racists if they think having a black skin is what makes you commit crime.
But too many of the woke do not apply this thinking to ideas like “white privilege” – they all too often won’t discuss correlations with culture, socioeconomics etc, but instead circle back to the notion of whiteness itself – which is why they get enraged when you try to unpack these issues further or offer nuance – for them it very often begins and ends with skin colour. You may have a different observation. I’ve had countless chats with academics involved in this stuff, and they almost to a person think like this – if they don’t, they simply don’t survive the social Darwinism of their modern humanities departments.
There are a large number of tribal thinkers on this site who frustratingly downvote many good counterpoints of people who wish to engage in honest debate (like yourself for example). I will never downvote anything unless the comment is downright abusive or ad hominem.
Di Angelo is not an obscure academic – she is a best selling global superstar whose books are required reading in most humanities departments.
Her assumptions I have heard regurgitated at almost every major University I’ve visited, including Oxford University. It is disturbing to see just how much her kind of thinking has been embraced in these places.
Students in these institutions, despite being clearly smart, embrace newspeak and double think in a way that I don’t think even Orwell could have foreseen, and which turns their brains to mush.
There are other super star academics like Priyamvada Gopal at Cambridge, who likewise hold such views.
Personally, I believe white supremacists exist. I just don’t believe they are worth taking seriously because they are very few in number and not particularly violent. The term has also been so over-used by a faction of the Left that it has become meaningless, much as Orwell complained of the label “f*scist” – an attempt to silence ideas without having to refute them with any kind of evidence or reason.
Such people remind me of christian fundamentalists screaming, “satanic!” at everything that conflicts with their orthodoxy.
When actual white supremacists (not people who believe in a points-based immigration policy accused of being as such) start rampaging through streets like Antifa do, and when they get a green light to open law-free zones in city centres with the protection of leftwing city counsellors, then I’ll start worrying that they are a threat.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

You seem to be quite obsessed with this Di Angelo woman. And you think she represents whom exactly? The “woke” group that you are unable to define?
And what is it with this comparison to the Jews in 1930s Germany? Are you expecting to be sent to a concentration camp or have your property stolen? You sound completely demented…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

So just to sum-up-
You’ve found a pretty obscure and nutty academic, and you’ve taken her as some kind of living representative of America’s future. You seem a bit obsessed with her- to the point of pretending that she and her chums are somehow the equivalent of the entire Nazi state.
Just to remind you- this is on a site where most of the comments are entirely supportive of the concept of “taking action”, of “payback”, against “Black trends”, where a self-declared white supremacist gets 20 positive upticks, and a number of people declare (very angrily) that racism is a lie, that it simply doesn’t exist except amongst “Blacks”. Someone got multiple ‘downticks’ for repeating the Founding Fathers’ phrase ‘All men are created equal”, for Christ’s sake.
And yet you bang on and on about this Woke academic as if she were enslaving the US. I think you need to get a little perspective. I don’t like what she says at all- she’s an idiot. But if you want a reminder of why some people think America is racist, try the comments here.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Did you read the comment here demanding the ‘right’ to live in a ‘homogenous’ (i.e., white) neighbourhood? Is that a “Wokist”, or a racist?
They can’t be “Woke”, as everyone here hates the Woke more than anything in the world, they hate them with a seething venom. And it can’t be non-Woke ‘racist’, because, according to the good folk here, such a person does not and cannot exist, except as a Progressive “lie”. So just who is this person? Or the many others here who agree with them? Or the self-described “white supremacist”, who apparently is also an invention of the “MSM”, despite commenting, and being upticked, on unHerd? Is this site a “lie”? Are we ALL made up by the MSM?
Please help me work this out, I’m sure it does all make sense, somehow….

Peter D
Peter D
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

That’s because the wokists are guilt ridden white supremacists. They help non-whites and then post about it to show the world that they are not racist.
Next time you are in a woke meeting and you will see them all sitting together, all white, loud and woke.
I’ve been there sitting in between a black woman and a Hispanic man and all 3 of us were thinking WTF!!!!
Liberalism does not work. The migrants put up with it. The first gen love it and the third gen hate it. Speak to people, real people. Racial supremacy is a joke but the reality is that it should not be a crime for people to want to live in a homogeneous community. Have some understanding

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Robyn Di Angelo (on the list of required reading in most agenda driven bullshit degrees) says “all white people are racist” – how would this be possible if they were not biologically different to other races? She doesn’t say, “all white people become racist, but “all white people ARE racist” – ie they are born racist, in much the same way that Jews are born “anti-German”.

Yes, you are correct that the details of the differences exist, but the idea of a polluting “out-group” is uncannily similar.

bung bung
bung bung
1 year ago

Your post was well-written and insightful. These issues are usually not objective so I respect your right to an opinion. But in my own opinion your post represents one of the biggest reasons for the strife and vitriol that dominate political discourse today. I think your incredibly misinformed or misinterpreting what you consider “woke thinking” somehow.

I don’t think there are any substantial number of people that thinks being white makes you morally depraved. There seems to be a group of people on the left that advocate for acknowledging race one way or another instead of adopting a more “race doesn’t matter” ideology. Maybe you misunderstood those people and believe they think being white marks you in some way?

Again I think there are a number of people on the left who take racial outcome disparities in things like education as a sign of some sort of oppression. I wont pretend to know much about genetics so I’m
Not sure who is predisposed to be good at what academically but I think it’s fair to say that unequal treatment is to blame for many educational outcomes of the past and I’m sure some those effects still linger somewhat today, but again, people don’t blame an evil oppressor but more so seek to acknowledge that some oppression took place in many instances.

I’m not sure what outcomes you mean in the third point and the fourth point is so wildly off base in my opinion it doesn’t warrant an explanation as to why, aside from the fact that anyone who believes “ whiteness confers genetically incurable malevolence” is incredibly fringe and is not a view not even remotely shared by anyone I have ever encountered in my extensive history being around “woke” people.
It’s upsetting to read things that are so misinformed because if any of this was true it would make total sense to be outraged and despise the left just as the left misinterprets and is misinformed about issues that cause them to hate the right.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

We have obviously just had different experiences. I have had debates with a large cross section of humanities professors, lecturers and students, and to my view, they are largely anti-white and inherently biological essentialist in their thinking.
I don’t dispute that *some* disparities in outcome are caused by oppression.
But the point is that this belief is applied without question and, also, selectively.
For example, disparities in arrest rates between white people and black people is often taken as proof of conspiracy to incarcerate black people.
If the premise is that all disparities in outcome prove the existence of systemic oppression, then why not conclude that Asians are oppressing white people? They are under-represented in prison compared to whites. Why not conclude that there is a war against men? Men are 23 times more likely to be incarcerated than women.
Disparities in outcome between groups defined as “the same race” also disproves the simple “systemic oppression” narrative. the BAME income data in the UK, for example, shows that many Asian minorities outperform native white Britains. How can racial oppression “of black and brown people” account for some Asians doing much better than whites, and some doing much worse?
What is the cause of these disparities? I don’t know. I just know that the ideological explanation for these outcomes doesn’t stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

‘BAME’ is certainly a pretty useless construct for explaining anything, given the complexity and fluidity of US demographics; as you suggest, lumping everybody into a simplistic ‘either/or’ racial category, and then making wild generalisations about the experiences and world-views of the members of each, is absurd and deeply unhelpful.
Some ‘Progressives’ are clearly uncomfortable (just as some conservatives are, but for different reasons) with the way that ‘race’ no longer has the ideologically defining narrative that it might have done in the past- that a Latino or Taiwanese or Nigerian immigrant might just as likely vote Republican as Democrat, and be a fervent free-marketeer. ‘BAME’, as a categorising ideology, is obviously partly an attempt to pull ‘race’ back into a nice, easy political dichotomy.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Maybe you’ve read the excellent recent article on unHerd- ‘Race was invented by Liberals’. It has some interesting home truths about the invention of ‘race’ and the Enlightenment, specifically the need for 19th century liberalism to use the concept of race to justify not just colonialism but the suppression of class dissent.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Maybe you’ve read the excellent recent article on unHerd- ‘Race was invented by Liberals’. It has some interesting home truths about the invention of ‘race’ and the Enlightenment, specifically the need for 19th century liberalism to use the concept of race to justify not just colonialism but the suppression of class dissent.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

‘BAME’ is certainly a pretty useless construct for explaining anything, given the complexity and fluidity of US demographics; as you suggest, lumping everybody into a simplistic ‘either/or’ racial category, and then making wild generalisations about the experiences and world-views of the members of each, is absurd and deeply unhelpful.
Some ‘Progressives’ are clearly uncomfortable (just as some conservatives are, but for different reasons) with the way that ‘race’ no longer has the ideologically defining narrative that it might have done in the past- that a Latino or Taiwanese or Nigerian immigrant might just as likely vote Republican as Democrat, and be a fervent free-marketeer. ‘BAME’, as a categorising ideology, is obviously partly an attempt to pull ‘race’ back into a nice, easy political dichotomy.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  bung bung

We have obviously just had different experiences. I have had debates with a large cross section of humanities professors, lecturers and students, and to my view, they are largely anti-white and inherently biological essentialist in their thinking.
I don’t dispute that *some* disparities in outcome are caused by oppression.
But the point is that this belief is applied without question and, also, selectively.
For example, disparities in arrest rates between white people and black people is often taken as proof of conspiracy to incarcerate black people.
If the premise is that all disparities in outcome prove the existence of systemic oppression, then why not conclude that Asians are oppressing white people? They are under-represented in prison compared to whites. Why not conclude that there is a war against men? Men are 23 times more likely to be incarcerated than women.
Disparities in outcome between groups defined as “the same race” also disproves the simple “systemic oppression” narrative. the BAME income data in the UK, for example, shows that many Asian minorities outperform native white Britains. How can racial oppression “of black and brown people” account for some Asians doing much better than whites, and some doing much worse?
What is the cause of these disparities? I don’t know. I just know that the ideological explanation for these outcomes doesn’t stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Easy.
This is obviously complete nonsense:
“Woke thinkers believe that being white marks you out as being morally depraved in much the same way that being Jewish did in 1930s Germany”
Define “woke thinker”.
Who has said that being white is “morally depraved”?
How are white people being treated similarly to Jews in 1930s Germany? Give specific examples.
That’s plenty of homework for you for now. Let’s see what you’ve got..

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Nazi ideology:
Women should be homemakers, should be subordinate to their husbands, and should have as many children as possible if they are ‘pure’ Aryan.
Homosexuals are depraved perverts who should be imprisoned.
Communists are a corrupt threat, internationalist rats who disseminate a Jewish-Bolshevic corrupting disease of the Nation.
Nation is to be promoted above all. The triumph of the German Nation is the supreme Good, supported by the ideal of the Aryan family, headed by the Father.
The northern European races are biologically superior to all others, and must defeat the lesser races. (You may think ‘Woke’ ideology believes this AGAINST whites, but this is your fervid imagination. Nation Of Islam, yes- but find me a contemporary quote from ‘Wokists’ claiming this- you can’t, it’s simply fantasist internet nonsense. Nowhere have I ever seen the concept of ‘racial biology’ promoted by the modern US left)
This is all a description of modern US progressives? If it is, most of the people on this site would love them.

bung bung
bung bung
1 year ago

Your post was well-written and insightful. These issues are usually not objective so I respect your right to an opinion. But in my own opinion your post represents one of the biggest reasons for the strife and vitriol that dominate political discourse today. I think your incredibly misinformed or misinterpreting what you consider “woke thinking” somehow.

I don’t think there are any substantial number of people that thinks being white makes you morally depraved. There seems to be a group of people on the left that advocate for acknowledging race one way or another instead of adopting a more “race doesn’t matter” ideology. Maybe you misunderstood those people and believe they think being white marks you in some way?

Again I think there are a number of people on the left who take racial outcome disparities in things like education as a sign of some sort of oppression. I wont pretend to know much about genetics so I’m
Not sure who is predisposed to be good at what academically but I think it’s fair to say that unequal treatment is to blame for many educational outcomes of the past and I’m sure some those effects still linger somewhat today, but again, people don’t blame an evil oppressor but more so seek to acknowledge that some oppression took place in many instances.

I’m not sure what outcomes you mean in the third point and the fourth point is so wildly off base in my opinion it doesn’t warrant an explanation as to why, aside from the fact that anyone who believes “ whiteness confers genetically incurable malevolence” is incredibly fringe and is not a view not even remotely shared by anyone I have ever encountered in my extensive history being around “woke” people.
It’s upsetting to read things that are so misinformed because if any of this was true it would make total sense to be outraged and despise the left just as the left misinterprets and is misinformed about issues that cause them to hate the right.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Sounds about right to me. What don’t you agree with?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Among the nonsense that is posted on these pages this truly takes the cake! I have rarely seen such nonsense. If yo actually believe a single word of this then I suggest you seek urgent psychological treatment.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Perhaps Graeme you would like to point out why I am wrong? I am genuinely intrigued to know.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Sounds about right to me. What don’t you agree with?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Among the nonsense that is posted on these pages this truly takes the cake! I have rarely seen such nonsense. If yo actually believe a single word of this then I suggest you seek urgent psychological treatment.

Kate S
Kate S
1 year ago

Excellent summary.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Among the nonsense that is posted on these pages this truly takes the cake! I have rarely seen such nonsense. If yo actually believe a single word of this then I suggest you seek urgent psychological treatment.

Kate S
Kate S
1 year ago

Excellent summary.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

By the way, was America “racialised” during the years of Southern segregation?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Did you notice the skin colour of the soldiers who brought down the “white nationalists” of 1930s-1945 Germany? Or those who ended slavery in USA 1865?

And can you explain the absence of anything similar in say the Arab world, which is rife with supremacism, long running slave trade, anti-Semitism?

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John – In my view there are substantial parallels between woke thinking and 1930s German thinking. For example:
One: The belief that people are defined by the group that they belong to, and not by their individual traits. Woke thinkers believe that being white marks you out as being morally depraved in much the same way that being Jewish did in 1930s Germany.

Two: the belief that disparities in outcome between groups is proof of conspiracy against a chosen group. Woke people attribute to “whiteness” the same oppressive power that Germans attributed to Jewishness – ie both belief systems attribute disparities in outcome to an evil oppressor group, ignoring all alternative non-racial theories.

Three: Both Woke people and 1930s Germans believed that the state should intervene in order to correct imbalances in outcome – in both cases adherents to the belief system empower the state to do this “rebalancing”.

Four: Both belief systems rest on biological essentialism.1930s Germans believed that the behaviour of Jews was determined by their genetics, such that they could not be cured of their malevolent tendencies by being raised by German families (hence extermination being a grimly logical outcome). Wokeists, in the same way, believe that whiteness confers genetically incurable malevolence on white people (they will often argue that race is a construct while simultaneously advancing policies and beliefs entrenched in obvious biological essentialism).
I could go on, but the above are 4 main parallels.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

I’m wondering if you actually read the article or just the headline? It says that despite all the nonsense from the woke crowd, white society hasn’t become radical in the slightest. In fact the white supremacy movement is little more than a few nobodies creating memes while still living with their parents.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

White nationalists were around long before all the “woke” stuff. The KKK was started in the 19th century and committing its horrors in the mid 20th century. I’m not a “woke” activist, but this can’t be blamed on them.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Could you explain your reference to 1930’s Germany, in the context of ‘Wokism’?
In my naivety, I thought that Hitler’s extreme white nationalism and anti-Semitism (a centuries-old, festering European sore) was the driving force of the Holocaust- you seem to be suggesting it was what- “demonising” white people? Interesting…

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago

The left have done their best to racialise society since the 80s, and are now throwing their hands up in horror that it is racialised.
What did they think was going to happen? Did they think they could cast white people as evil and get them to denounce themselves forever?
It is at least politically smart in a place like South Africa to demonise white people when they are demographically too weak to mount a response.
It is quite another thing to demonise them in countries where they are the majority. White identity politics may just be beginning and it will likely be ugly.
But it’s the inevitable outcome of deciding that race is not incidental and unimportant, but the central story of peoples’ lives and, moreover, pitted in a zero sum game of survival against other races.
Sometimes I wonder if the faction of the left pushing this stuff has ever read any history at all. It’s as if they regard the Balkans, South Africa, Rwanda, 1930s Germany, and the Soviet Union as examples to follow rather than cautionary tales.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

“even among conservatives there is occasional and genuine concern that racism as a political force might be making an ugly return, especially among the young.”
As a conservative I absolutely do see the spread of racism among the woke as a very, very serious problem.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Agree.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Deleted

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Bray
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Or maybe it is that your comment can be read as critical sarcasm.