Subscribe
Notify of
guest
348 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 months ago

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
Peter D
Peter D
2 months ago

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

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

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

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

Frank Winter
Frank Winter
2 months ago

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

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
2 months ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

“Dont come screaming for help to me”

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

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 months ago

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

Frank Winter
Frank Winter
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

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

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Frank Winter

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

B Emery
B Emery
2 months ago

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  B Emery

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

B Emery
B Emery
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

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

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

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

Last edited 2 months ago by Samir Iker
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

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

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

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

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 months ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Excellent peice of potted history thanks Charles

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 months ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

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

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

c donnellan
c donnellan
2 months ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

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

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

c donnellan
c donnellan
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

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

Katalin (Melbourne)
Katalin (Melbourne)
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

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

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

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

Stoater D
Stoater D
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

“A few nobodies”
Exactly.

Jane Anderson
Jane Anderson
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

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

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

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

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

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

Elizabeth dSJ
Elizabeth dSJ
2 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

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

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 months ago
Reply to  Elizabeth dSJ

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

Last edited 2 months ago by Billy Bob
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 months ago

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
2 months ago

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

Last edited 2 months ago by Steven Carr
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

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

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago

Like a pure-bred Fatherland of some kind?

LEON STEPHENS
LEON STEPHENS
2 months ago

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  LEON STEPHENS

Couldn’t agree more

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  LEON STEPHENS

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

c donnellan
c donnellan
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

R Wright
R Wright
2 months ago

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

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

R Wright
R Wright
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago

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

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

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

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
2 months ago

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

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
2 months ago

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago

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

Harvey Mushman
Harvey Mushman
2 months ago

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

bung bung
bung bung
2 months ago
Reply to  Harvey Mushman

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  bung bung

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
2 months ago

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

Emre S
Emre S
2 months ago
Reply to  bung bung

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

Last edited 2 months ago by Emre Emre
E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
2 months ago
Reply to  bung bung

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

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

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

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

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

No the main victims of the Nazis were Russian.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

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

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

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

Peter D
Peter D
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

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

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

bung bung
bung bung
2 months ago

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

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

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

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

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
2 months ago
Reply to  bung bung

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

Last edited 2 months ago by hayden eastwood
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

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

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

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

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

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

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago

Excellent summary.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago

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

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Agree.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Deleted

Last edited 2 months ago by Jeremy Bray
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
2 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

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

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago

Many thanks for your analysis. Clearly my words were infelicitously assembled if they were interpreted as sarcasm so I have deleted them and replaced them with simple agreement.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jeremy Bray
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Gratias tibi propter exquisita lamentatio Jeremiae.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

But it’s an obvious logical conclusion to wokeism and identity politics – as highlighted by feminism now being superseded by trans rights.

I don’t understand how you could have thought the woke wouldn’t become racist – identity politics – the bigotry is enshrined in the name.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“I don’t understand how you could have thought the woke wouldn’t become racist”
I never thought the woke scum wouldn’t become racist. I hate them precisely because I hate racists.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

We’re on the same page on this.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

I thought we might be.

Stoater D
Stoater D
2 months ago

Although there are a handful of white supremacists they are just a tiny number and most people take no notice of them.
White supremacy is a figment of the Left’s imagination and it only exists in their heads.
Today white people are under constant attack
by the mainstream media.
White people are currently a targeted demographic.
Even black conservatives
such Larry Elder are accused of being “white supremacists”.
It is the Left, not the conservative right that is a threat to demcracy and civilisation
The Left are deranged and evil.

Last edited 2 months ago by Stoater O
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Indeed I have seen Glen Loury complain about being accused of being a white supremacist. His sin was to be a black conservative who didn’t believe all the troubles of blacks were due to race discrimination. Plenty of other black conservatives have been similarly reproached. It is no more than a leftist insult to black conservatives and anyone white who doesn’t tow the leftist race line.

Stoater D
Stoater D
2 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Yes, it’s desperately sad.
The only way to combat this is to call it out again and again.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Before or after upvoting a post that starts: “White supremacist here”? I’m not assuming you gave it a thumbs up, but over 20 have so far.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
2 months ago
Reply to  Stoater D

The idea of white supremacy is a cudgel – a valuable tool.

bung bung
bung bung
2 months ago
Reply to  Stoater D

The same way there are a tiny number of white supremacists that people pay no attention to there are a tiny number of people that think all white people or a black conservative is a white supremacist that people pay no attention to.
When will you people stop demonizing each other so much. It’s fine to disagree but if half the country thinks the other half is evil and deranged and vice versa? I hate to break it to you…but, you’ve both been misled and herded like sheep into hating each other.

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
2 months ago
Reply to  bung bung

The difference is the leftwing racism appears on the cover of the LA Times, and every other mainstream media publication, and the right wing racism is universally condemned and considered unacceptable in any public space

Adam Young
Adam Young
2 months ago

Your example of the Waffle House employee missed out on the irony of the situation. Many clips are taken of fast food and clothing joints where people are stealing and fighting one another, very rarely does staff push back. Nobody was taking it seriously and you come across like someone explaining a joke you didn’t understand.

As for demographic change, well it is unprecedented so I think a few have a right to be worried. Eric Kauffman can’t be the only one allowed to question the conclusion of a perfect multiracial harmony.

Sargon is not a white nationalist either. He’s a classical liberal bred from internet edginess.

Last edited 2 months ago by a.youngserf
Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Adam Young

“very rarely does staff push back.”
Yes, I thought that was very interesting to watch.  

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Adam Young

Your not supposed to fight back, that’s what made that one story in a million noteworthy – your supposed to take it, and take it and take it some more in the name of racial harmony according to some.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Blacks breaking out and fighting at a Waffle House or an IHOP for that matter is not a unique event. The sad part is that it happens often enough that it’s a trend.

Last edited 2 months ago by Cathy Carron
Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

I agree, it’s a depressing trend.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

‘Blacks breaking out and fighting” is a “trend”?
Yet you tell me that “racialising” is a bad trend.
So is “Blacks” doing bad shit a trend, or is people making racial statements a trend, Kate?
Which is it?

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yes, it’s a trend unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years and have somehow managed to avoid all news reports on television and social media. There are daily, sometimes hourly, videos showing groups of young black adults and children ransacking shops, trashing eateries and ganging up to kick the crap out of lone (usually) white and asian people – it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s out there for anyone with eyes to see. And it’s not just white people that comment on this, large swaths of the black community accept it and are concerned about it too, a child couldn’t have missed it so i’m resolved to think you’re being highly disingenuous.
As for your radicalising comment i have no idea what you’re trying to get at in reference to my comment, maybe try not typing so angry and maybe you’ll make more sense.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

True, I’ve seen a few of these videos. Also, I lived in Notting Hill for several years, and stayed away from the Carnival after my third time or so of seeing black gangs dealing out beatings to random white people.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
2 months ago
Reply to  Adam Young

‘Sargon is not a white nationalist either. He’s a classical liberal bred from internet edginess’ – Yes

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago

Agreed. The author clearly either sets a very low bar for white nationalism, or has done no research on Sargon – for my part i’m more inclined to believe its the latter as left leaning journalists appear to have completely abandoned any pretence of truth seeking and fact checking – it’s all just a tawdry mud slinging game now.
The authors other assertion that the white women who defended herself from the black woman attacking her was quickly demounced by the evil white supremacists because she sounded poor and had a black boyfriend was ludicrus as well. I’m sure anyone seeking confirmation bias will be able to find people (from left or right) posting unpalatable things about her, but on the whole all i saw was conservatives celebrating that for once, a white person held up their hands and defended themselves.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months ago

Why are there NEVER any articles giving details about anti white and anti Christian discrimination in black and Muslim countries?

Where are the non black or muslim politicians, media frontmen, advertisements, pressure groups, activists?

There are none, and our politicians and media do not have the moral courage, bravery and backbone to say so, let alone create polemic and discussion.

Nu britn is fast becoming Germany in 1936… but without the military spend!

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago

Quite. I remember off of the top of my head Deborah Emmanuel from Nigeria who last Summer was dragged outside of her class room by her class mates and beaten and burned to death for being a Christian (guess the faith of her classmates that burned her alive was?). It was reported on but memory holed very quickly, like all attacks on Christians which are becoming more and more frequent.
If i remember correctly an Iranian refugee murdered and multilated 2 gay Irish men at around about the same time too. Again, reported on and quickly memory holed for something more important i’m sure.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Frances Davis
Frances Davis
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

The Irish press reported that Ireland was a racist country and gay people were being attacked wholesale…but when the identity of the perpetrator was know,all went deadly quiet…go figure.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Frances Davis

That’s usually the way of it, straight off the news cycle.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
2 months ago

Why? It’s not in the official playbook. That’s why. Just like no mention of what has happened in SA. Just look the other way. Well, apparently, some are refusing to look the other way.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Exactly! It’s so transparent though – i feel like it was always like this, it just took social media to open our eyes.

B Emery
B Emery
2 months ago

Well, actually I don’t think that’s true. The whole American propaganda machine has been running stories about anti West Muslim terrorist groups since 9/11. The taliban certainly don’t get a good rep in our press do they? Isil? Ive grown up with this stuff slapped across the telly. They went the whole hog didn’t they live streaming hussein hanging? Was it bin ladens house they also did ‘live feed’. Only America. The twitter files revealed all kinds of weird stories the pentagon had fed into their media.
I’m going out on a limb here, right.
If America hadn’t started its enormous propaganda machine and ‘war on terror’ in the middle East, would we be having these problems in the first place.
In Britain would we have this problem of small pockets of Muslim extremism if we weren’t associated with Americas, if we are honest, diabolical conduct over there? I mean really you can’t say anything good came out afghanistan or Iraq for the people there, here or anywhere really.
America hasn’t done great on earning trust, anywhere.
Could be wrong. But there’s a small attempt at polemic.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months ago
Reply to  B Emery

There is no other ” religious entity” that is conducting actual and terrorist warfare across the African continent, in cells throughout the world: fact.

B Emery
B Emery
2 months ago

Yes I accept that. But I think it’s fair to say that our press has covered plenty of ‘terrorist warfare’ etc especially Libya, the whole gaddafi thing, the Somali pirates were well covered.
The African continent has many, many issues. I imagine most news from Africa its kept on the down low in our media because there’s a pretty serious proxy war between the US and China over the lithium, cobalt and uranium in the DRC. Rwanda is involved. Zambia. Uganda. Much of the ‘terrorist warfare’ is actually more of a massive mess of proxy wars over resources. Africa has been a mess for a long time, there’s many bad things that happen that get no coverage.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-US-And-China-Are-Rushing-To-Secure-Resources-In-DR-Congo.amp.html

B Emery
B Emery
2 months ago

I’m awaiting approval again….. For no apparent reason. I did try.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

“Nu britn (sic is fast becoming Germany in 1936”
So, state support for mothers who can prove pure Aryan lineage, to stay at home and bare white children. The outlawing of homosexuality as a sexual deviance damaging to the national psyche. The removal of non-Aryan races from public offices and the confiscation of Jewish property and voting rights. The outlawing of Communist parties, and the internment of Marxists in concentration camps. The essential belief in “the natural inequality of man” and the superiority of the “white races”.
I don’t know where this “NU britn” is, but you must love it. It sounds terrific- I can’t wait to visit.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
2 months ago

‘Many who had earlier professed a deep respect for “the working class” spent the election night viciously denouncing those workers as “gammon”, “racists”, “ignorant”, and of being “ungrateful” in not understanding that these radicals were only trying to help them.’

Obviously , that had happened well before Election Night 2019.

I remember staunch Labour supporters calling working-class people ‘thick’ during the election campaign once some opinion polls had come out.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

That was one of the two main reasons i finally broke from Labour, it took a while but the unhinged and vile attacks on working class people for having the temerity to vote against the middle class activist block finally made me see the light.
That and them declaring the category of woman a mixed sex class that was an identity, rather than biological category. But they forever lost hundreds of thousands of women with that one. I can’t stand the current government, but the thought of letting Labour through the door turns my stomach.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Yes, Small choice among rotten apples as the saying goes.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

I think you mean you can’t stand the current population. We get the government we vote for.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

You might see it that way, i don’t.
After decades of the vast majority of our cultural institutions playing divisive politic games, the main ones being education and digital media and having read a fair bit about what the behavioural ‘nudge’ science units have been up to in recent decades i don’t see much of what has been happening as organic.
I also think it’s led to the intended demoralisation of the white working classes in the UK who feel attacked at every turn and generally unherd and uncared for throughout society despite having the worst outcomes across the board against any other group.
I’d also add that polls consistently find the vast majority of the public favour polices like sensible controls on immigration, and do not believe claims like ‘Trans Women Are Women’ (when it’s made clear that those TW are not going to get their bits lopped off and will be allowed into little girls changing rooms) – yet the Tories continue to ignore their elected mandate on immigration control, and the Labour party are pledged to things like reforming the Gender Recognition Act – so ‘the people’ are voting one way, and our politictions are… just doing whatever the hell they like basically, which in mind means this isn’t an issue at population level.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

The truth.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I am happy with the population but what can they do if they are dissatisfied with the parties on offer. They end up voting for what they hope will be the least worst option among the rotten apples to try to keep out what they think is the worst. I suspect that the SPD probably has the policies most attuned to what a majority want but they get insufficient exposure to allow people to take the risk that their vote will let the most rotten apple in.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

My hope would be that the SDP vote would eat into Labour at least as much as into the Tories.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

It’s been eye-opening to me reading all this about the British political situation. Here I’ve been voting election after election (U.S.) for years, each time staring down double barrels of badness, always trying to decide if it’s wiser to pick by the principle of the least objectionable, or feel like I at least exhibit some spine by leaving many blank (ballot counters call those “undervotes here.) And then I discover it is the same in Britain now. I am left consoling myself with the quote from your countryman that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.”

I just finished reading vol 1 of Fukuyama’s”Origins of Political Order” and one of his favored words is “repatrimonialize” by which he means the human tendency to corrupt positions of power at all levels for the gain of family and friends. It’s something elites do the world over no matter how meritocratic their origins. An interesting word which he uses explain political and social decay. It’s tempting to see “the man” in that word, but that would be entirely beside the point. But it does permit some interesting irony when applied to such modern phenomena such as transgender “men”. Or is it women? I can never keep them straight.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago

If it helps you are far from alone in the US. The madness is spreading by degrees throughout the West (note: not the World, just the West). Is has a slightly different flavour depending on which country you’re looking at (for example UK hate speech laws are among the most draconian in the world ((incl. Russia)) where believe it or not we regularly see people arrested for saying things like ‘men can’t become women’, while I know in the US children are now being taken from their parents for not agreeing to castration via gender affirming surgery – and so it goes throughout Europe too) so while the flavours of demoralisation vary, the overall bitter taste and sense of helplessness is the same. 
To your point, there doens’t seem to be political parties anymore does there? Just government blobs who wear slightly different branding but basically align under the same global values that our new world order have been deciding for us since the end of WW2 it would seem. I heard it referred to as a controlled demolition of the West once and it felt like it was quite an apt description. I liked your word repatrimonialize also (I admit I haven’t read Fukiyama though I see him cited so often I probably should), but it reminded me of Thomas Fleming’s phrase ‘anarcho-tyrannies’ to which he describes “law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus.”, or more broadly “A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones.” That feels quite like where we’re at now to me – you can burn down a neighbourhood or cosh a pensioner over the head in broad daylight and walk away without punishment, but upset a peodophile online and the police will be knocking at your door. 
The demoralisation is the key here though I think, they want us to feel so hopeless and powerless that we stop fighting back – and I fear it’s working. 

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Keep fightin’ Kate.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Don’t worry John, i’m never going to give up.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 month ago
Reply to  Kate S

Thank you for the thoughtful response. As I’ve been working my way through Fukuyama’s example after example of this empire, this regime and that with the inevitable corruption that takes hold at the upper levels of whatever form of status hierarchies emerge, I keep thinking about the simple fact that here in the U.S. we elect all these Senators and Congresspeople (don’t want to get arrested), many of whom have only mundane incomes coming in, and can only legally collect their not that great congressional income, but who seem to universally come out the other end with great wealth. Bernie Sanders is a classic example. How many megamansions does he now have? Four I believe? Worth tens of millions of dollars. Where’s the money come from? Doesn’t matter which party – they all are accumulating this wealth somehow. This is what Fukuyama is talking about in the flesh. They set up proxy companies with their relatives at the helms that do millions of dollars of deals with foreign countries – often our enemies. This is decay.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Je suis d’accord.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
2 months ago

I gets rather amusing when you start comparing Ibram X. Kendi and David Duke quotes.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Simpletons the pair of them

R Wright
R Wright
2 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

The rather infamous 1961 image of George Lincoln Rockwell and his mates sitting at a Malcolm X and Elijah Mohammed lecture where he was a guest speaker springs to mind.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
2 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Two peas in a pod.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 months ago

“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.”
Don’t you mean the left have seized upon the trope of white nationalism as a stick to beat their opponents

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago

Yes, if they are really worried they are idiots for supporting positive race discrimination but in truth most are not really worried they just want to slander their political opponents.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
2 months ago

‘found an inspiring example of an “Aryan shield-maiden” behind the counter at a Louisiana Waffle House.’

Our wonderful expert article writer thinks that Austin is in Louisiana, rather than Texas.
It makes you wonder about the quality of the research.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

My thoughts precisely. The author seems unfamiliar with US culture and politics. His observations are of on-line TikTok reels and such. And he bounced back and forth from so-called racial politics in the UK and USA not making valid comparisons. And finally, a TikTok reel does not reflect everyday life; Most people regardless of race are not political in the way he describes and are just trying to get by in life. The ordinary wo/man on the street would have no idea what he’s trying to explain, which does support his one correct observation; these far right and far left groups are indeed ‘marginal’ and represent very small minorities.

Last edited 2 months ago by Cathy Carron
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

The far right ones are, to be sure. The far left ones are somewhat larger, I think. I base that entirely on my own personal tally of people I know or have brushed up against well enough to tell though.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

The dude lives in Sweden.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Tonight the ‘white Valkyrie cook’ was interviewed on TV she was asked why the fight broke out. She said she was the only cook on duty and that there were about 30 or 40 orders – so she was slow getting food out….add to that, the late-night impatience of ‘drunk black’ customers and BOOM – ya get chaos. How does that figure into this author’s far distant observation? I’d say he did everything he could to craft a totally insane essay.

Last edited 2 months ago by Cathy Carron
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

The article wasn’t about the incident itself, which was, as you say, a pretty standard Saturday night aggressive drunken incident, but about the subsequent internet wankery making her out to be some kind of “white saviour” leading the “push-back” against “Blacks”.
It’s not a particularly complex bit of writing-it’s amazing how many people here seem unable to grasp it.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
2 months ago

Support for interracial marriage now stand at 94% – enough said IMO.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Indeed an enormous change from the 1960s when laws existed in many US states making interracial marriages illegal and criminally sanctionable. For most sane people the content of a man or woman’s character are infinitely more important than the colour of their skin. In this sense the doctrine of Martin Luther King has prevailed. However, the rise of intersectionional politics is striving hard to poison the well.

Terry M
Terry M
2 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Precisely. Racism has never been lower in the US. And THIS is a problem for those on the left who rely on racism as their rallying point for trying to show them virtuous and who are trying to cloak themselves in the glory of the 1960’s civil rights movement and successes.
Not enough racism? Generate more! That’s their modus operandi.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
2 months ago

White Supremacist here. I’m a nice guy tho. I just think that *everyone* has the right to be master in their own house. It is only whitey who considers that he is obliged to hand over his country to whomever walks across the border (or paddles across the Channel). Only whitey who believes that he has no right to his own heritage. In Peru they are Peruvian Supremacist, in Zambia they are Zambian Supremacist and we applaud every example of African Supremacy with tears of joy. Fine. In exactly the same way, I’m a White Supremacist — I am *not* looking forward to becoming a stranger in my own country. OTOH, whitey is now so weak and so stupid and so pathetic that perhaps the time has come for us to be replaced with stronger and better people. Still, there are those of us who will go out with a bang, not a whimper.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
2 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

You are correct about one thing. We are the only people on the planet that are not supposed to be proud of who we are or what we have accomplished. I’m waiting for Lady Gaga to change the lyrics of “Born This Way” to exclude white people.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

“I’m a nice guy tho”.
Hitler was a little sweety, too. But I’m confused as to how the “supreme white race” can be “stupid and pathetic”.
Furthermore, when you say that you and your fellow ‘stupids and pathetics’ will “go out with a bang”, are you going to kill people? Just so we know….

Stoater D
Stoater D
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

You mean like the Left do ?
Antifa and BLM are so peaceful aren’t they ?

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Stoater D

“You mean like the left do?”
Yes, some. Does asking this person presume otherwise?
“Antifa and BLM are so peaceful aren’t they?”
Not particularly, no. Did I say they were? Does that change this persons violent ides?
Now, why are you asking me this, whilst happily ignoring the self-defined white supremacist here, who wants to “go out with a bang”? The one who’s got an unHerd positive ‘score’ of 15, when people here tell me I’m lying when I say that some people call themselves ‘white supremacists’?
“Hello, white supremacist here”, he starts. Yet I’m told here that ‘white supremacists’ don’t exist. And you get your knickers in a twist because I question him.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Although I want to avoid a sarcastic tone for now, I fully agree with what you’re saying. Perhaps “supremacy” in this naked sense doesn’t even need to mean “superiority” but just a desire to rule because you like “yer own kind” and because you can.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The responses here to the article are hilarious.
The article is merely pointing out that ‘white nationalism’ is pretty much an irrelevance, a small bunch of resentful, disorganised losers. And yet it’s made most commenters furious, for deeply confused reasons.
On the one hand, how dare anyone suggest white nationalists are a real problem (which is precisely what the article is NOT saying), or even exist at all- when one post even starts with the phrase “I am a white supremacist”. Oh, and the KKK were ‘left-wing’.
On the other, long howls about how oppressed whites are, how only whites aren’t ‘allowed’ to proud of their ‘race’, how America has descended into an anti-white ethnic pogrom of black women throwing chairs at whites “like Germany in the 1930’s”.
Meanwhile, a post threatening a righteous violent white revenge gets a big overall ‘upvote’, and one quoting the Founding Fathers’ “All men are created equal” gets a big overall ‘downvote’.
So that’s all perfectly intelligent. God bless the internet.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Nicely framed. “Nothing to see here, move along” on the racism front but also thumbs-up for a post that begins “White supremacist here”! Wow.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

You have disingenuously failed to observe the distinction between:-
(i) R.Andrews’s self-designation as a white supremacist, which we all agree marks him out as a loathsome individual.
(ii) the content of R.Andrews’s post, which depends upon the following interestingly valid argument:-
Black supremacism is ok – it’s accepted by our cultural elites, and is embedded in our institutions by means of critical race theory.For all races x,y, x supremacism is morally equivalent to y supremacism.Ergo, white supremacism is ok.
The easy way to escape the rebarbative conclusion of a valid argument is to deny one or more of its premises. In the present case, the obvious candidate is 1. Black supremacism is not ok, and the embedding of CRC in our civil institutions – schools, universities, the civil service etc – and in our work lives via politicised HR must be stopped.

Last edited 2 months ago by Drahcir Nevarc
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

How is America your/our house? Did African Americans walk across any border? How about Native Americans? It’s valid to to point out the universality of racism and ruling elites with common ethnic traits, but it’s not a good excuse to be a proud racist.
We got ourselves into this aspirational mess of a pluralistic society when “we”–the white male ancestors who could vote–signed on to a document that claimed “All men [read “people”] are created equal”. There’s no going back to 1786 or 1859 now.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And yet your ‘score’ here for that post is negative.
The overall response on this site to someone repeating the fundamental statement of the Founding Fathers- “all men are created equal”- is negative.
Wow.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

I framed it in a way that was designed to challenge, but I agree: Wow. This article elicited comments and some robust camaraderie from a lot of far right/alt-right subscribers. Seems a worrisome number (imagine they) would like to go back to 1963, 1859, or 1786.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m a bit confused by this site. I joined up because the articles are an interesting mix of viewpoints, neither obviously ‘left’ or ‘right’, but I’ve been shocked how rabidly and gormlessly right-wing and conspiracy-minded the majority of the comments are. I don’t want left -wing- God knows I’m fed up with the Guardian- but I thought there might be an intelligent, independently-minded mix here. I didn’t expect the quality of thinking to be on the ‘Hitler was a lefty because the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party’ level.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

I concur. I’m something of a refugee from NYT and the Guardian myself, though I still check both and find some semblance of the Other Side(s) at the NYT. I also look at Reason.com (Libertarian), National Review, The Spectator, etc., although more of that stuff is unreadable or off-the-mark to me, on average. There’s also an often-good center-left website called Persuasion, started by a German-born Jew living in America called Yascha Mounk. Sorry If this preamble was dull or uninteresting.
The articles on this site have a better mix than the comments, both for ideological variety and for getting beyond ideology into something more searching, nuanced, or idiosyncratic. I’ll mention Kingsnorth, Harrington, and Eagleton as writers who always merit my attention, if not my agreement.
Shouldn’t the aspirational unherding in the punning (paronomasia, couldn’t resist using this inkhorn term) of this site’s name be more than a re-flocking together in reflexive opposition to what’s considered normal or “MSN”? I’m a bit of a lot of a contrarian myself–sometimes to a real fault–but I try to go beyond that, not believing everything I think, nor imagining I came up with it all on my own, for better or worse.
The comments do tend to the right, but there are many in the broad center, a few on the left, and some fun people one can’t pin down. Different clusters flock (haha) to different comments boards, but it’s the intelligent centrists and elusive outliers who make UnHerd worthwhile for me–some of the time.
I’m glad to have a civil, intelligent exchange with a stranger, full name or not, online. While that’s not the norm here, it does happen, and some places that’s almost unknown (rare at NYT, nearly nonexistent at the Guardian–when they allow comments–except in vigorous, we-hate-the-same-things agreement).
Hope you’ll stick around and not get too upset or preoccupied with the dullards and provocateurs; I’d do well to take my own suggestion there. Please forgive my American spelling and prolix reply.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I quite enjoy The Weekly Dish by Andrew Sullivan. I don’t much agree with his politics- he’s an old-school liberal conservative/semi-lapsed Catholic/gay British expat- but he’s intelligent, compassionate and thoughtful, and he has an excellent range of high-level guests. He’s ‘anti-woke’, but he’s far more ‘anti-Trumpist GOP’, and he does both proper facts and nuance.
And the comments rise a bit above the ‘Hitler was Woke’ brigade.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Great I’ll check it out. I like and respect Sullivan much of the time, though he’s grown more “you gay kids today don’t understand…get off my lawn!” over time. He’s quite well known here in the You Ess of A.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

I, too, have noticed this and it does depress me. There are, however, a few commentators who write with some degree of nuance,and a scattering who are well informed and worth reading. The articles are most often well argued and informative, which does keep me on this site even though I have come to accept that it is, on the whole, a right-wing bubble, often with shockingly racist views expressed which are not even seen by the poster as racist.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Could it be that OBVIOUSLY all men are NOT created equal ?? Anyone who actually thinks that must be a moron !! That all men deserve a ‘fair suck of the sav” is OBViouSLY a good hopeful goal – but one that ‘we’ are a long way from acheiving due to our biological narccistic greed and anxiety. Plenty of space there for reasonable discussion i would have thought …..

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
2 months ago

I think the message of this article is that if Black women start throwing chairs at you, don’t duck.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Yep, don’t fight back – just take it, that’s what your there for. Reparations or something…

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Maybe, Kate, it’s not a violent “Black woman”, but a violent woman.
Or are you “Woke” too, with your obsession with seeing racial identities and not simply Americans?

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was responding to how the author has racialised the incident, or didn’t you read the article?

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

But the author didn’t “racialise the incident”- the entire article was precisely about how the incident was ‘racialised` on social media. Try reading it. A bunch of dicks decided a small scrap in a bar was a ‘race war’.
You then “racialised” it again, by repeating the ‘race war’ crap; two people in a fight with a chair is a “Black” attacking a “White”, and now you think ‘white people’ should react to ‘black people’ in a specific way. Identity politics, in other words. You have a ‘thing’ about race, just like your Woke chums and your white supremacist chums.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

A quote direct from the author’s article above
“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.”
Now, he would have just said “…a recent viral video depicted two women, late at night in a Waffle House (where else?) having a fight”. Instead, he chose to point out the race of each woman, and in the paragraphs beneath he dissected this episode as a racial incident, even bemoaning how a new anons on the internet made a stupid meme about the white woman who fought back, which might strike you as odd as if you’d watched the video (i have) you’d have picked up on the fact that the black woman in the video was the clear aggressor, so why the author is upset that ‘the internet’ cheered the white woman on is beyond me, other than that the author believes the white woman had no right to defend herself from attack if the person attacking her happens to be black. But if you have another theory on this please let me know.
So yes, the author racialised the incident, using racial language, in his racial essay on the ‘feebleness of white nationalists’ whom he tellingly never quite identifies (they’re just out there, everywhere, don’t trust anyone white ok?) in fact, one might call it a pretty racist article all around.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Dear God, Kate- are you trying to be funny, or are you actually, genuinely this confused?
The incident was “racialised” on the internet- that is THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE- the response to a minor incident of aggression in a bar on social media by morons claiming it to be an example of the ‘race war’, a white woman defending herself against “the Blacks”.
You yourself seem to be getting pretty excited about “Whites” “fighting back” against “Blacks”. Why not just be honest, grow a pair, and stop this laughable, disingenuous crap about not approving of “racialising”? Go on Kate, get stuck in… you know you want to.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Hmm. Which phrase, sentence, or paragraph gave you that thought?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

So…downvotes without a single example. Good one. I’d like to remind us all, myself included, not to believe every thought or notion we have as if it’s truth itself. On to something else now.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Just to check-
All the ranters here are furious that the ‘Wokists’ see everything through ‘race’, so they are nasty racists. The good, right-thinking folk here, on the other hand, are colour-blind.
But when you see a film of a customer throwing a chair at the staff of a bar, you see “a Black woman” throwing a chair at a white woman, and think the “message” is to behave a certain way to “Black women”.
Right. Glad we sorted that out. The level of rational, coherent thought here is a lesson to us all.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Again. The author racialised the incident, that’s why the commentators are responding in those terms. You either didn’t read the article or you’re being spectacularly disingenuous.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

The author started the racialization himself??

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I love Kate S- she might actually be a parody. Nobody can really, actually be that thick- apparently, if there’s one thing she hates more than people who “racialise” an incident, its “whites” not being allowed to “fight back” against “Blacks breaking out”, which is a “trend”.
So, no “racialising” there, then.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
2 months ago

A little lazy to describe Carl Benjamin as a racist. He’s not – as someone put it below ‘Sargon is not a white nationalist either. He’s a classical liberal bred from internet edginess’.
There are almost certainly more out and out black supremacists and explicitly racist woke identitarians with tenured faculty positions at North American universities than there are actual (non FBI informant) white supremacists – and the latter hold no positions of power, are geographically and socially marginalised. Intellectually justified and rationalised racism is almost exclusively a problem of the left

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

Is “bred from internet edginess” a euphemism for something? Being a ranting half-wit, perhaps?

Michael Wilhelmson
Michael Wilhelmson
2 months ago

There are a number of word traps in this article which deflect from the issues. Is white “nationalism” the same as white “supremacy”? If you don’t see race do others? Does that matter? Is immigration however you define it a good thing for people of European decent? Are there interests such as your childrens’ future worth being concerned about… such as the future of their children in a school system run by college educated white women who think CRT is a good thing and that whites are inherently oppressive and …. better off without them? The biggest trap is the boomer truth notion that white nationalism can only be expressed in something resembling german national socialism… which fair enough is a delusion among some… It ain’t coming back as it was a unique phenomenon in a particular mid 20th century country. We aren’t getting at the issues if we labour under delusions… although there is no question about actual divisions in the white community that are far greater problems than any migrant… such as the great divide between the working class of either sex and the college educated women and their sycophants I mentioned.

Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
2 months ago

“To normal people, this was just another amusing viral video.”
You have got to be joking! No normal person, no decent citizen would find this revolting behaviour ‘amusing’. I don’t wish to have anything to do with people like these and hope they never come anywhere near my domain.
The video is symbolic of the extent to which respect for standards of decency and acceptable social interaction have been destroyed by marxist elites in their relentless pursuit of revolution (while enriching themselves).
That a supposedly respectable journal like Unherd publishes such drivel is profoundly depressing.
[PS – Nice one Hayden!]

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago
Reply to  Julian Pellatt

Why don’t you tell us more about these “marxist elites”?
This should be funny!

j watson
j watson
2 months ago

To summarise – radical left and radical right are fairly marginal in truth and generally powder puffs when it comes to it, Yep generally agree.
As we all know spending a lot of time on-line can distort one’s sense of proportion because we all tend to seek out echo chambers, compounded in recent times by our main social media platforms being prone to algorithmic abuse pinging us confirmatory stories. Leave the front door of the house/flat and re-enter real world occasionally and suddenly much of what we get steamed up about on line dissipates. That can come as a terrible shock to some.
That said one does need to guard against complacency. Both ends of the spectrum are malign. 

Terry M
Terry M
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

“radical left and radical right are fairly marginal in truth and generally powder puffs when it comes to it”
Maybe you have alrady forgotten the summer of 2020 when antifa and BLM rioted in scores of cities, caused many billions of $ in damage, and attacked or killed dozens of police. The radical left is active, organized, and deadly …. and the MSM turns a blind eye.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  Terry M

This is what i don’t understand, the more Antifa and BLM et al riot and assult citizens, the more degeneracy you see that’s clearly coming from left leaning policies (i’m thinking San Francisco’s catastrophic drug policies), the more i hear about the ‘Far Right’ – i hate to use such an over used term, but it’s the definition of being gaslit. Or maybe we’re now entering the first stages of an anarcho tyranny?

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

Don’t leave out Portland and Seattle.

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago

No, or New York. I feel so sorry for the people having to watch the controlled demolition of their neighbourhoods.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

What the hell would an “anarcho-tyranny” be?
Have you ever come across the term ‘oxymoron’?

Kate S
Kate S
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Google it you midwit. You’re like a small dog nipping at the heels of everyone in the comments section, have some dignity.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kate S
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kate S

So you don’t know. Ok, that’s fine.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Ah- you’ve cut ‘n pasted it elsewhere. A terrific bit of half-witted double-think, but thanks anyway.
Never mind, Kate- I know everything is just awful, but there’s always Russia or Afghanistan, if ‘the West’ gets too much for your lovingly-nurtured sense of perennial victimhood. Try ranting in public there- you might get into a bit more trouble than having me being slightly rude to you.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

I made this up on my very own about 90 seconds ago:-
Anarcho-tyranny: a space initially and ostensibly operating on a principle of anarchism or leaderlessness, in which the political functions are gradually assumed by an assertive elite, who become the tyrants.

Last edited 2 months ago by Drahcir Nevarc
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

A space initially and ostensibly operating on a principle of anarchism or leaderlessness, in which the political functions are gradually assumed by an assertive elite, who become the tyrants.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
2 months ago
Reply to  Terry M

And when convenient for the narrative, a ragtag bunch transforms itself into a “threat to democracy”.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers may be rough, but they are not all rag-taggers. If they were just a bit more organized, if many of their leaders and wildest rag-tag fanboys were not now headed to prison, that legitimate threat to democracy could have been way more damaging. It’s pointless to pretend that Jan 6, 2021 was some just sightseeing tour that got a little rowdy (or whatever), or that uprisings of its kind don’t remain a real threat.

Kat L
Kat L
2 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

that is becoming such a tiresome incident that you drag out at every opportunity. you much watch a lot of msnbc because that is one of four topics that they harp on constantly; trump, jan 6, trump, conservative russian stooges.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

You clearly watch more of it than me because I currently watch zero minutes a week, less even than FOX or NewsMax. I watch a little CNN, especially the weekend shows Smerconish and Zakaria, on a regular basis.
So, being familiar with left-leaning programming: Did you watch much of the Jan 6th hearings, starring legit conservative Liz Cheney?

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

I think, to be fair, I did hear Fox also mention Trump a few times as well. It’s just that they had their tongue so far up his arse that I couldn’t actually make out what they were saying.
Still, he seems to be a bit depressed now.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Jolly good timing for a much-needed laugh out loud thanks !

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Terry M

Like I said the extremes on both sides are malign.
We saw more on the news in the UK of the Capital riots seeking to overturn an election result. One assumes you condemn that too?

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Why on earth would you assume that? Perhaps you’re being ironic….

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago
Reply to  Terry M

You weren’t supposed to notice the murders that occurred on BLM ‘Summer of Love’ watch….the Democrats made sure of that…

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Actually we did see reports on these riots, and how polarising the views were on cause.
But obviously a storming of the Capitol and attempt to block an election result, with deaths involved too, was going to attract even more attention and hardly surprising.
Do you condemn both? I do.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Maybe it’s true that most radicals on both the Left and the Right do their foaming-at-the-mouth at home on the internet instead of in the streets with rifles. But so what? They don’t all need massive numbers or physical intimidation to achieve their “malign” goals–not in democracies and certainly not among radicals on the Left.
All they need is to influence public opinion–that is, to seduce the press and get voters to elect representatives who will act accordingly until every institution is undermined from within. After only a few years, they’ve come to wield much more power than this or that statistical survey might indicate, whether their power relies on public credulity (almost hysteria), passivity and conformity or on realistic fear and neurotic guilt. This is how moral panics work, and wokism is by no means the first of those in living memory. What was radical ten years ago or even two years ago and confined to elite campuses, has metastasized and gone mainstream. It is now conventional wisdom for huge segments of the population. Woke radicals are now respectable, in short, not members of the sinister and terrifying rabble. They’ve already had profound effects not only on seemingly arcane academic theories but also on the policies of government agencies, party politicians, “advocacy journalists,” grade-school educators, police departments, museum curators and even many churches.
Right-wing ideologues, by contrast, are not nearly as wealthy, educated, sophisticated or influential as Left-wing ideologues. All they have is rage. That’s why they’re unlikely to succeed in achieving goals such as “white supremacy” in Western democracies (barring the chaos that some economic or military catastrophe might entail),

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

I think you lack some confidence in the common sense of the vast majority of people to differentiate between stuff you might see as ‘woke’ (whatever the heck Woke really means) that actually is pretty reasonable and will in due course mainstream, and more outlandish nonsense that won’t, regardless of the latest bit of University student silliness. Jeez all the radicals I encountered at that stage of my life ended up as stock brokers so give it time !
Extremes of identity politics is a convulsion that will in due course settle. Stupid arguments must be contested and highlighted for the nonsense they are, but don’t do the over-panic.
Certainly from across the Atlantic the US does not come across in anyway as a left wing state. In so many ways quite the opposite. I hope that is some reassurance.

Last edited 2 months ago by j watson
Kat L
Kat L
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

only because you are watching mainstream media which is doublespeak for leftist media. don’t be reassured; you have no idea what is going on over here.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

How would you characterize your own media diet…fair and balanced?

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

You might just have to grasp the fact that attitudes change- women got the the vote, slavery becomes anathema, homosexuality becomes an individual choice. A few still want to reverse these changes (a few here, no doubt), but the great majority don’t. Are they ‘dupes’? Or are they just normal, decent people who believe what they believe?
So the fact that you regard normal people who accept and agree with many of the changes happening now as gullible morons, idiot dupes of sinister forces manipulating them (“credulous hysterics” in your words) says a lot more about your dislike of modern, normal Americans than about the reality of changing social mores.
As j. watson says above, much of the current ‘radical’ agenda is pretty daft, to put it kindly, and won’t gain any serious support from the ‘average’ American. It’s fashionable on campus, and most people in the real world will reject it. But your utter contempt for the common-sense and reasonableness of most Americans puts you firmly on the radical, furious fringes along with the most extreme of the ‘woke’ brigade.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

You begin by saying what is true but trite. Of course “attitudes change.” Everyone knows that. But is every change, per se, beneficial? So much for the logic of your argument.
To make your point, moreover, you select only examples that would easily prove it. I agree that it was good to end the persecution of gay people (and not only because I happen to be gay). But consider what should be an obvious historical example that would not prove your point. To gain power in the first place and then to institutionalize their theories of “racial hygiene,” the Nazis had to work hard at changing attitudes (and didn’t always succeed). Some Nazi policies seemed very radical in the 1920s but acceptably normal in the 1930s. Should the Germans who resisted those changes (at great risk after 1933) have been more complacent than many people (and not only in Germany) already were? In hindsight, it’s easy to scold those who failed to see danger, heed warning signs, rely on fundamental moral insights, ignore common sense and so on. I can think of many other historical examples of collective folly.
You should consider the price of complacency. It’s true that moral panics don’t last forever. Nothing lasts forever. In some cases, resistance builds from within. Not all scientists even now, for instance, are willing to support the pervasive attack on reason itself. In other cases, resistance comes from outside. Mass murder in Nazi Germany didn’t stop because “normal” people finally grew weary or rebellious. It stopped because the Allies invaded and prevailed.
Meanwhile, until foolish or malevolent ideas are replaced by better ones, millions of people suffer terribly. Remember the moral panic over “Repressed Memory Syndrome”? I do. How many laws were changed in accordance with the insights of “experts” in psychology or social work (who have yet to apologize for malpractice)? How many families were destroyed? How many institutions–such as “news” agencies, universities and legislatures–were corrupted? How many “normal” people have responded to collective folly by resorting to cynicism? Too many, I’d say.
You accuse me of having “utter contempt for the common-sense and reasonableness of most Americans.” Actually, my attitude is consistent with the American founders. They worried, with good reason, about how easy it would be for a democracy to turn into a mobocracy (which is what happened only a few years later in France). They designed the Constitution, its “checks and balances,” with precisely that in mind.

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

The analogy you appear to be making is some of the current Woke stuff similar to Mein Kampf supported by Blackshirt bully boys and race laws. That is drivel I’m afraid.
One amongst many problems for the Right, and especially those who blather on indiscriminatory about Woke and Blobs, is that time does not appear to be on their side. Surveys appear to increasingly show the young in the UK and US embrace progressive social values. What used to happen though is we became a bit more conservative as we grew older, worrying about the mortgage etc. But for so many of the young the Right, with its policies that have increased insecurity, have taken that prospect away too. The Right is thus likely to reap what its sown.
Some older people have contempt for the ‘snowflake’ generation as they call them. One suspects the feeling is mutual amongst some of the young, but who is time with? The Right fears a younger generation who are economically insecure but progressive. I think sometimes the heightened invective shows the Right know the tide is coming in regardless. Painting oneself though as a Sophie Scholl equivalent is a little narcissistic to say the least.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

That’s virtue signaling, not an argument.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

And that’s a cliche, not a reasoned response.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

“So much for the logic of your argument”
But that wasn’t my argument- I never said “every change” was good, so the logic problem is yours.
My point obviously wasn’t that all change is good, I was simply underlining a consistent contradiction of the rants here, which is the simultaneous assertion that ‘normal’, ‘decent’ folk, or ‘the People’, are the great source of ‘common sense’ and Truth, against which the evil Progressive ‘elites’ impose their hateful ideologies using lies, force and propaganda. But if ‘the People’ agree with something ‘progressive’, then they cease to be the noble People and become dupes, cretins, suckers and slobs.
Most of the commenters here seem to hate pretty much every change in the US since WW2, if not since the end of slavery (except the internet, of course; they LOVE the internet). And they tell themselves that their hatred of so much modern life is not the fringe resentments of the ranting outlier, but the true beliefs of all decent Americans- the fabled ‘silent majority’. It’s wildly simplistic b***s, of course a tactic to avoid confronting the complexity of the world, and the complexity of change.
You do seem to be more honest about your position in this respect, though- so perhaps my post was a bit misdirected.

Bob Smalser
Bob Smalser
2 months ago

So feeble they are largely a figment of your imagination. Or FBI plants like your photo.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bob Smalser
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Bob Smalser

OF COURSE they are “FBI plants”.
What else could they be? You’ve seen something that conflicts with your ‘narrative’- so it has to be ‘fake’. Like your friend Alex Jones and his ‘narrative’ that the parents of the children of the Sandy Hook massacre were “plants”, everything that you find difficult to fit into your little ‘story’ MUST be a lie.
Why don’t you just be honest, and admit that the dribbling young men in the photograph are your kind of people? You LIKE them, you AGREE with them, you think they are standing up to the Wokist scum and fighting for folk like you. Is that REALLY so hard? Just be honest, grow a pair, and admit it. Stop whining behind fake conspiracy ideation that fools no-one, and own your beliefs.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Bob Smalser

Don’t call them “plants”. It makes them sound like vegetables.

R Wright
R Wright
2 months ago

The author forgets that the “plight of the modern radical” isn’t much different in 2023 compared to 1923, when bitterness over politics led to the rise of radical movements all over Europe.

Kat L
Kat L
2 months ago

“…has been a perennial worry among mainstream pundits, both inside America and abroad.” sure but they don’t actually believe it, they are peddling a narrative to scare the middle classes into voting for the left. that is why they hide statistics and certain characteristics of criminals if the narrative doesn’t fit a crime story they cannot ignore. they always report the race of the criminal if they are anglo, but it is usually not mentioned if they are anything else. they are not mainstream pundits, they are leftist pundits presenting as mainstream.

Paul Devlin
Paul Devlin
2 months ago

Isn’t the predicament the author describes always that of every ‘vanguard’ movement until the stars align and power falls into their hands?

Paula Adams
Paula Adams
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Devlin

Yes. We have to keep an eye on the nuts so they don’t turn into spreading Oak trees. But I think his point is that radicals on the left and right are both unthinking social media mobs. The dangerous radicals are the ones not on social media.

miss pink
miss pink
2 months ago
Reply to  Paula Adams

Thanks, Paula! You’ve managed to summarise this long article in two sentences.

Mark Gilmour
Mark Gilmour
2 months ago

I don’t think ‘white nationalism’, or rather white identity politics, is going anywhere. While it is true that these political movements are a haven for socially unsuccessful malcontents, it is also seemingly true that there is a growing consciousness among whites of their own ‘otherness’ as multiculturalism and multiracialism play out in ways that differ from what was promised.

There is still much to play out in the now inexorable and irreversible demographic transformation of the West. If it is held as true today that minorities must have their own group representation in society that will also one day become true for whites. Hitherto whites have had no need for their own representation which made white identitarian groups seem silly and misguided at best and deranged at worst. As whites are muscled out of cultural spaces as their relative numbers decline, this perception may change.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mark Gilmour
John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark Gilmour

What bout the “inexorable and irreversible demographic transformation” that resulted in the US becoming so-called “white” in the first place? Who, amongst the inhabitants of the time, felt they got was was “promised” by the Great Replacement of the 18th and 19th centuries?

Mark Gilmour
Mark Gilmour
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

What about it?
Are you be implying that the founding stock of the United States (no such nation existed prior to European colonisation) is morally bound to accept further open ended inward migration given the circumstances in which it was founded? Even if such a moral duty does exist, that’s not the same thing as expecting those people to accept it without complaint.
What exactly are you implying, you haven’t made it very clear?

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark Gilmour

I simply find the ‘anti-Progessive’ attitude to migration and race to be a bit confusing.
A load of Europeans go over uninvited to a continent and proceed to decimate, through violence and disease, the vast majority of the previous inhabitants. This the ‘anti-Woke’ brigade are very proud of. And yet they also regard continuing migration into ‘their’ (white) nation as not only a threat, but call it- with a furious sense of victimhood and paranoia- “Replacement Theory”.
Now, if I were a descendent of the pre-European inhabitants, I’d find the ranting about ‘Replacement Theory” pretty funny.

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  Mark Gilmour

As for this “group representation” that whites are missing out on- I thought that every American had one vote, regardless of ethnicity. Am I wrong? Do different ‘races’ (however defined) hold different elections for different ‘racial’ Senates?
There seems to be a lot about the US Constitution I don’t know about…

Mark Gilmour
Mark Gilmour
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

I suspect you are not arguing in good faith so I won’t waste too much time with a response, but I was reasonably clear in my original comment that I wasn’t making any prescription in my original comment but a prediction of what is likely to occur depending on circumstances.
You’re also being wilfully obtuse/trolling in your interpretation of what I meant by group representation.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
2 months ago

“The subtext here isn’t particularly subtle”

Neither are the thick glasses through which one miiiiight be seeing the world.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months ago

Well I liked the article and your explanation of the mimicry between these groups Malcolm.
But you seem to have stirred up a fair bit of negativity in a lot of other commenters.

Tony Testosteroni
Tony Testosteroni
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Malcolm is a midwit plagiarist

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
2 months ago

One of the most amusing things about “white supremacy” is the absolute state of the specimens who consider themselves “superior”.
A very brief survey of a Trump rally serves to disprove any concept that those losers are superior to anyone. As for their cult leader, a fat moron with a habit of running everything he touches into the ground. Supremacy my a**e!!!

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago

So far, most of the commenters here can’t quite decide if yes, they are proud white nationalists fighting the good fight against the evils of multiculturalism etc. etc., or if the whole concept of white nationalism is a huge lefty lie, that nothing of the sort exists; sometimes, within the same post.
Can we please have a vote here- is white nationalism the Truth finally coming home to roost, the return of a righteously vengeful white consciousness, or is it a lie made up by the enemy to smear nice, racially-blind conservatives?
Or both!

John Holland
John Holland
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

And why has nobody mentioned Southern segregation? Was that also an invention of ‘the left’?

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
2 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Well, yes, it was an invention of the Left.
George Wallace was a Democrat.

Alabama had a Democrat governor from 1878 to 1986.
Not always the same one.
Mississippi had a Democrat governor from 1871 to 1991

Last edited 2 months ago by Steven Carr
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Using Democrat as an exact synonym for “the Left” is false and ahistorical. The KKK and most hard core white racists (yes, I acknowledge that it goes the other way too) began rapidly switching their allegiance to Republicans after Kennedy. The Republican crowd does not lean same way today as it did when it was a radical upstart party in 1860 and the Democrats are no longer the party of record when it comes to the Lost Cause. Why did David Duke change his D to an R in 1988?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 months ago