Main Edition
US
FR
A member of the KKK shouts at protestors (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
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 â 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 â such as the Crimean prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya â 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 â 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 â the Valkyrie herself â 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.
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.
SubscribeThe 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.
Iâm wondering if you actually read the article or just the headline? It says that despite all the nonsense from the woke crowd, white society hasnât 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.
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.
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 âThis here is Africa!â 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.
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.
Well said. Real life is only rarely represented in the media (social media included).
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.
“Dont come screaming for help to me”
Frank – we already know whose side you lot are on, and it ain’t people like me.
Fanny that is not helpful-better to ask for more useful detail…..
Fanny that is not helpful-better to ask for more useful detail…..
“Dont come screaming for help to me”
Frank – we already know whose side you lot are on, and it ain’t people like me.
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.
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.
“Hiding in a hospital”?
Jesus wept, what an arse.
FW you got some data to underpin your first sentence contention? And some data to prove causation?
I love this site.
A request for evidence gets 10 overall downvotes, but no evidence.
Who said the internet killed thought?
Don’t give up John, I for one appreciate your comments!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t give up John, I for one appreciate your comments!
Again why the downvotes – ??? this is getting a bit weird…..
I love this site.
A request for evidence gets 10 overall downvotes, but no evidence.
Who said the internet killed thought?
Again why the downvotes – ??? this is getting a bit weird…..
“Hiding in a hospital”?
Jesus wept, what an arse.
FW you got some data to underpin your first sentence contention? And some data to prove causation?
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
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?
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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…
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.
Excellent peice of potted history thanks Charles
Thank GM Trevelyan and A Bryant who was Attlee’s, Wilson’s and Thatcher’s favourite historian.
Thank GM Trevelyan and A Bryant who was Attlee’s, Wilson’s and Thatcher’s favourite historian.
Excellent peice of potted history thanks Charles
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.
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…
Blimey 40 odd down ticks for making an observation based on real experience. Says something about Unherd readers.
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.”
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.
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.
huh ! whats with all the downvotes – i must be getting senile and missed some outrageous attitude here ?????
Most people flee ‘diversity.’ Only ideologues embrace it.
Well said. Real life is only rarely represented in the media (social media included).
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.
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
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?
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?
Blimey 40 odd down ticks for making an observation based on real experience. Says something about Unherd readers.
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.”
huh ! whats with all the downvotes – i must be getting senile and missed some outrageous attitude here ?????
Most people flee ‘diversity.’ Only ideologues embrace it.
“You/Jews will not replace us”. Remember that chant? It was well-publicized in 2017.
Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/new-surge-support-replacement-theory-rhetoric Last accessed: 4 Jan 2023
Naughty. 6 slaps across the wrist for saying uncomfortable things.
Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/new-surge-support-replacement-theory-rhetoric Last accessed: 4 Jan 2023
Naughty. 6 slaps across the wrist for saying uncomfortable things.
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.
“You/Jews will not replace us”. Remember that chant? It was well-publicized in 2017.
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 âThis here is Africa!â 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.
“A few nobodies”
Exactly.
He used the word ‘racialise’ not ‘radicalise’……
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 âlost penguinsâ in this article. Which is it? Canât be both.
Youâre 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
Youâre 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
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, âracial equalityâ is not just a failed ideal, but was always a Trojan Horse for anti-white radicalism.
Your opinion of me is miles off love, if you think I was calling you or anybody else a white supremacist. Iâm white, working class and fairly conservative in my outlook, although leaning slightly left economically. However I hold the woke and the online âown the libsâ right with equal disdain, I think theyâre 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
Your opinion of me is miles off love, if you think I was calling you or anybody else a white supremacist. Iâm white, working class and fairly conservative in my outlook, although leaning slightly left economically. However I hold the woke and the online âown the libsâ right with equal disdain, I think theyâre 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
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.
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.
“A few nobodies”
Exactly.
He used the word ‘racialise’ not ‘radicalise’……
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 âlost penguinsâ in this article. Which is it? Canât be both.
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, âracial equalityâ is not just a failed ideal, but was always a Trojan Horse for anti-white radicalism.
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.
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.
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.
‘First â the reality that genetic studies didnât 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.
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.
Like a pure-bred Fatherland of some kind?
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.
Couldn’t agree more
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.
Those who deny any significant genetic component to human difference are outright liars for political, ideological, or religious reasons.
Those who deny any significant genetic component to human difference are outright liars for political, ideological, or religious reasons.
Couldn’t agree more
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.
Like a pure-bred Fatherland of some kind?
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.
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.
‘First â the reality that genetic studies didnât 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.
Half of the modern Klan is FBI informants. Most of the other half is FBI employees.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party after they lost the Civil War.
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.
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.
It was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party after they lost the Civil War.
Of course it can. Racial identity politics begets racial identity politics, as night follows day.
Thank you for this note of “likeable” sanity on a reactionary-riddled comments board.
And the KKK were Leftists… Southern Democrats. Funny how the media usually conveniently omits those facts….
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
For Christ’s sake, Bung, don’t confuse these half-baked internet warriors with history or thought. It just upsets them.
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.
*Ahem*. The name was Wallace, Mr. Historian.
But it’s only the difference between a Scottish rebel and a Baltimore courtesan.
But it’s only the difference between a Scottish rebel and a Baltimore courtesan.
*Ahem*. The name was Wallace, Mr. Historian.
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.
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.
“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.
For Christ’s sake, Bung, don’t confuse these half-baked internet warriors with history or thought. It just upsets them.
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.
“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.
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
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.
Half of the modern Klan is FBI informants. Most of the other half is FBI employees.
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?
Of course it can. Racial identity politics begets racial identity politics, as night follows day.
Thank you for this note of “likeable” sanity on a reactionary-riddled comments board.
And the KKK were Leftists… Southern Democrats. Funny how the media usually conveniently omits those facts….
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…
By the way, was America “racialised” during the years of Southern segregation?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
No the main victims of the Nazis were Russian.
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?
No the main victims of the Nazis were Russian.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps Graeme you would like to point out why I am wrong? I am genuinely intrigued to know.
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..
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?
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?
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?
“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.
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?
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?
“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.
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?
“Define âwoke thinkerâ.”
An authoritarian pseudo-progressive who calls him/herself a liberal.
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?
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?
“Define âwoke thinkerâ.”
An authoritarian pseudo-progressive who calls him/herself a liberal.
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.
Thatâs 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.
Iâve 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
I can’t wait for my next “woke meeting”!!!!
“Homogenous community”? Why don’t you just say what you really mean?
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.
I can’t wait for my next “woke meeting”!!!!
“Homogenous community”? Why don’t you just say what you really mean?
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.
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.
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…
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.”
I guess youâre not from the US and have no idea whatâs 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.
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.”
I guess youâre not from the US and have no idea whatâs 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.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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…
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.
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….
Thatâs 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.
Iâve 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
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.
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 âwoke thinkingâ somehow.
I donât 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 ârace doesnât matterâ 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 Iâm
Not sure who is predisposed to be good at what academically but I think itâs 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 donât blame an evil oppressor but more so seek to acknowledge that some oppression took place in many instances.
Iâm not sure what outcomes you mean in the third point and the fourth point is so wildly off base in my opinion it doesnât warrant an explanation as to why, aside from the fact that anyone who believes â whiteness confers genetically incurable malevolenceâ is incredibly fringe and is not a view not even remotely shared by anyone I have ever encountered in my extensive history being around âwokeâ people.
Itâs 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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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..
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.
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 âwoke thinkingâ somehow.
I donât 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 ârace doesnât matterâ 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 Iâm
Not sure who is predisposed to be good at what academically but I think itâs 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 donât blame an evil oppressor but more so seek to acknowledge that some oppression took place in many instances.
Iâm not sure what outcomes you mean in the third point and the fourth point is so wildly off base in my opinion it doesnât warrant an explanation as to why, aside from the fact that anyone who believes â whiteness confers genetically incurable malevolenceâ is incredibly fringe and is not a view not even remotely shared by anyone I have ever encountered in my extensive history being around âwokeâ people.
Itâs 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.
Sounds about right to me. What donât you agree with?
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.
Perhaps Graeme you would like to point out why I am wrong? I am genuinely intrigued to know.
Sounds about right to me. What donât you agree with?
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.
Excellent summary.
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.
Excellent summary.
By the way, was America “racialised” during the years of Southern segregation?
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 – 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.
Iâm wondering if you actually read the article or just the headline? It says that despite all the nonsense from the woke crowd, white society hasnât 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.
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.
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…
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.