The most ridiculous excuse for the Rise of the Alt-Right and White Nationalism....."It's the Left's fault"
| So...this is what I'm hearing from many circles on the internet.. "The rise of the Alt-Right is the fault of the Left!" Soooo....let me get this straight....."the Left", and by this they mean SJWs and shit like that....made the Right go so far right that they became Nazis? Someone has to explain this shit to me because it doesn't make sense. >SJWs call White people nazis >White people don't like that and justifiably mock the SJW movement. >However SOME White people get soooo angered by being called nazis....they become nazis! WHAT? |
| it's always easier to shiftblaming than self reflecting... it's alwasy has been.... |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| some of the Trump fans just wants to kill globalization (even though you cannot stop capitalism from going global) and multiculturalism since they think white people are losing jobs from outsourcing (even though automation is more to blame) as well as losing their culture and gene pool they think the left wing is the establishment for all of this globalization and multiculturalism even though the right wing loves capitalism so much and more of the reason for those really |
| the left blames the right for everything thats wrong with America the right blames the left for everything thats wrong with America i dont see whats new here, people are always looking for someone else to blame |
 |
| Since when did the "left" become synonym of SJW? I see this a lot lately, but that's completely moronic IMO. SJW may disagree with the right more than with the left, but it doesn't mean that the left is happy with SJW's ideas or behaviour... |
 |
| It's a way for nazi scum to justify their bigoted idealism. Nothing more. |
| I think it might have to do with A) Being displaced in all Western countries B) Higher crime rates and welfare use among non-white immigrants, especially Muslims C) Overwhelming anti-white indoctrination in universities D) Affirmative Action E) Double standard on identity politics (only whites not allowed to partake) F) Getting called racist or Nazi for supporting milquetoast civic nationalism G) South Africa Or it just came out of nowhere, a total mystery. Who knows. |
| it's not hard to google... altarius already explained so i can't add anything else. anti-white indoctrination by the left and the media playing it up helped the movement grow to where it is today with people like richard spencer. this also caused less right-wing people, like your rebelmedia, lauren southern, and tara mcarthy's to gain attention, but i don't know if that alone is the reason for them forming their beliefs. for europeans, the alt-right, alt-lite w/e is necessary because their conservatives don't do anything at all to help with their problems, and are on a daily basis witnessing the revolting effects of a liberal mindset. |
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
| I'm talking about America mostly....so I don't really want to hear about Europe. |
| What's happening in Europe is a big reason for American guys getting radicalized. The migrant crisis and things like the Rotherham scandal is what pushed me past a Sam Harris-tier analysis. At some point, trying to "work with moderates to reform Islam" becomes laughable in the face of what's happening and what is to come. |
Altairius said: What's happening in Europe is a big reason for American guys getting radicalized. The migrant crisis and things like the Rotherham scandal is what pushed me past a Sam Harris-tier analysis. At some point, trying to "work with moderates to reform Islam" becomes laughable in the face of what's happening and what is to come. lmfao who the fuck is saying they want to reform islam. yeah that'll definitely bring back the dead relatives families have lost. that'll really help. that's gonna solve how badly europeans have been affected by it. just kick them out already ffs, holy fuck this angers me to no end. |
Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
Altairius said: What's happening in Europe is a big reason for American guys getting radicalized. The migrant crisis and things like the Rotherham scandal is what pushed me past a Sam Harris-tier analysis. At some point, trying to "work with moderates to reform Islam" becomes laughable in the face of what's happening and what is to come. Just to be crystal clear....I am very much against the ideology of Islam. I'm old school atheist. As in, ALL religion is pure 100% bullshit. And the biggest bullshit of them all is Islam. The Cult of Death will never get a pass from me. |
| If you did anything other than getting spoon fed propaganda you'd be able to draw historical parallels and realize that there's always a back lash against overly zealous leftism. |
Yomiyuki said: Altairius said: What's happening in Europe is a big reason for American guys getting radicalized. The migrant crisis and things like the Rotherham scandal is what pushed me past a Sam Harris-tier analysis. At some point, trying to "work with moderates to reform Islam" becomes laughable in the face of what's happening and what is to come. lmfao who the fuck is saying they want to reform islam. yeah that'll definitely bring back the dead relatives families have lost. that'll really help. that's gonna solve how badly europeans have been affected by it. just kick them out already ffs, holy fuck this angers me to no end. I think this is the line that Sargon and his ilk are still putting out there. Sam Harris may have admitted that it's impossible by now. For my part, I just say why should this be our problem? There's zero reason for it. We can "bring Democracy to Muslims", or we can go to the stars. Which way, white man? |
spuukiebuugi said: JonyJC said: If you did anything other than getting spoon fed propaganda you'd be able to draw historical parallels and realize that there's always a back lash against overly zealous leftism. There's also a backlash against far right zealots who deface the name of conservatives everywhere… so whoever said that those retards heading White Supremacist rallies were ever any better than SJWs needs to be promptly smashed in the face with a reality brick Conservatism is 10 year old leftism, right-wing movements come as a result of society shifting ever leftwards and what appears to be extreme now was the norm 50 years ago, that's the alt-right, now if they are a good movement or not that's another question but they appeared because there is no right and that's what very ignorant people like the op don't realize. |
| Meanwhile, you still can't stop waifu wars/shit taste thread in MAL... This notion is the same I think. There's no end when people just argue for the sake of their well-being or to protect themselves from being eaten up. Ohhh well, either way, the world is screwed one way or the other. |
| I do agree that blaming "everyone one the left" for this is ridiculous. But in the first place there is no "rise of the alt-right/white nationalists/white suprememacists/KKK/neo-nazis". Just look at the results: Even though "the right" controls most of the government. The local governments are caving in to criminal but "less bad than nazis, so they are forgiven" anti-fa. What exactly did the "extremists on the right" gain (and from where) that you can call this the "rise" of them? Only one thing: bad press, but media attention nonetheless. As for policy for permanent racial/ethnic discrimination and keeping all the confederade statues standing? Nothing. Meanwhile the very existence of "extremists on the left" was supressed as much as possible by the media, but gaining at least one policy victory (e.g. removed statues) despite "the left" only being opposition in most places. So where is this "rise" of the "extremists on the right" when the only thing they get is their 5 minutes of fame only to be forgotten soon? All actual "evidence" for their supposed "rise" is based entirely on imaginary "subtle clues" and "dog whistles" that have no actual basis in reality. Just supposedly "obvious" hidden meanings. In every other context people would call this a conspiracy theory, i.e. "it's all secret dog whistles by secret racists" = "it's all secret messages by secret illuminati". |
 |
omfgplzstop said: The alt-right is much closer to leftism... That is very true and was part of my point. omfgplzstop said: There is absolutely a right, the people on it just don't stand up to smears from the left as often as they should. Then there is no right, before the term was distorted "cuck" was an attack against those types, people(leaders) who can't even stand up to their own beliefs. omfgplzstop said: How is conservatism 10 years old again? When was the last time you saw a conservative (one who matters) seriously arguing against homosexuality? It's the norm now something like 12 or so years ago even Obama was against gay marriage if I'm not mistaken. If the right shifts its paradigm that fast then it stands for nothing. omfgplzstop said: Or, I guess so we don't get tangled up in definitions, what's "right" and "left" to you? Meaningless labels without proper definitions, the current right is an ever shifting set of ideals as I've already stated, leftism is what leftism always was a spiral into insanity, even if you stop on the way like out dear @--ALEX-- someone more zealous will take it further until there is pretty much nothing left (kmer rouge) or the extremists get killed by someone less extreme (stalin & french revolution). |
| You fucking idiots are trying to make excuses for the rise of the alt right and white nationalism? You guys are so retarded. The Alt Right and White Nationalism are reactionary movements to the increasingly globalized world economy/culture in the Western Hemisphere and the direct consequences of globalization of economy and culture have lowered security,increased radicalism on both sides and increased GDPs but loss of jobs in rural America. Thats why the Alt Right exists and also why the Left has become more radical.Fucking idiots havent learned from the Romans,Austro Hungarians or Ottomans how multicultural states end up as. |
 |
Altairius said: What's happening in Europe is a big reason for American guys getting radicalized. The migrant crisis and things like the Rotherham scandal is what pushed me past a Sam Harris-tier analysis. At some point, trying to "work with moderates to reform Islam" becomes laughable in the face of what's happening and what is to come. And one major reason migrants are flooding Europe is due to Gaddafi being removed from power. He himself actually warned of this happening; Europe's politicians should have listened. |
 |
omfgplzstop said: The alt-right is much closer to leftism... ANYTHING to blame the Left, huh? Jesus. Let me play your game. Islam is very conservative, they dislike gays, dislike abortion, dislike "degeneracy" and are VERY religious. Herpa derpa....Islam is MUCH closer to Right-Wing Conservatives! |
| Islam is conservative, and some interpretations are too conservative for anywhere but their own countries, something that just isn't the case with any other religion. Then you have the left abandoning the ideas of the left and going full communist and collectivist neither which are the American way (this is the main cause of Neo-Nazis, which are collectivists on the right coming back into prominence). Collectivism must be defeated by individualism, if the left stops the overtly collectivist Communist sympathies, the racial collectivists will go back underground and we'll have peace, and it starts by denouncing the Stalin supporters and Antifa. As for globalism you can't kill it, but you can reduce it to an extent, however, globalism has both sides to blame as people from the GOP and the Democratic Party have supported TPP for example. |
 |
| "The most ridiculous excuse for blah blah..." Reactionary groups have always bubbled up when their counterparts on the opposite side of the political, social or whatever spectrum become too strident or gain power. To use a more hip term: it's called pushback. Been going on for centuries. Throwing around terms like "most ridiculous" is only making you look like a political newb. |
| Avatar: Anzu Kadotani from Girls und Panzer. Sig by MissIntrovert.  |
omfgplzstop said: Wouldn't that just mean no one cares about conservatism as opposed to conservatism itself having changed? Because there are still people who stand for actual conservatism. The nature of conservatism is to be on the defensive, it's in the name, what does it conserve? It conserves the previous zeitgeist while the left fights for the next one and inch by inch the left wins. If it is the society who changes then either one or the other is wrong you can't have two truths I'd prefer no going further down this rabbit hole. --ALEX-- said: Islam is very conservative, they dislike gays, dislike abortion, dislike "degeneracy" and are VERY religious. Herpa derpa....Islam is MUCH closer to Right-Wing Conservatives! Yes it is, that doesn't mean we have to like them or behave like them, you keep reducing the world to left-right dichotomy for some reason. |
| Oh Alex, why do you worry so much about that...? omfgplzstop said: The alt-right is much closer to leftism... The left pretty much leads to authoritarism; |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
Dildry said: You fucking idiots are trying to make excuses for the rise of the alt right and white nationalism? What "rise"? Again, what in any way indicates the "rise" of these groups? That premise is entirely based on mainstream media coverage. But media coverage is not based on "importance" of something, but rather on political "plays", as well as ratings. As far as I can see these groups don't really have much support. And even large parts of those groups themselves don't support the idea of a totalitarian government, i.e. the US is not the Weimar Republic in the 1930s... but the US of A in the 2010s. I see no arguments of substance AT ALL that show why these groups are an actual threat to western society. NONE whatsoever. Just lots of baseless paranoia of becoming like Hitler's Germany. At least provide SOMETHING that shows this being in any way realistic instead of just being the imaginary "monster under the bed" for adults. |
Grey-ZoneAug 23, 2017 1:54 PM
|
Grey-Zone said: Dildry said: You fucking idiots are trying to make excuses for the rise of the alt right and white nationalism? What "rise"? Again, what in any way indicates the "rise" of these groups? That premise is entirely based on mainstream media coverage. But media coverage is not based on "importance" of something, but rather on political "plays", as well as ratings. As far as I can see these groups don't really have much support. And even large parts of those groups themselves don't support the idea of a totalitarian government, i.e. the US is not the Weimar Republic in the 1930s... but the US of A in the 2010s. I see no arguments of substance AT ALL that show why these groups are an actual threat to western society. NONE whatsoever. Just lots of baseless paranoia of becoming like Hitler's Germany. At least provide SOMETHING that shows this being in any way realistic instead of just being the imaginary "monster under the bed" for adults. Well technically they have risen but arent that prominent. |
|
omfgplzstop said: JonyJC said: I guess that's fair, but they still exist, just aren't as common. I had this discussion yesterday with traed, within states they're still pushing for those kinds of things.That is very true and was part of my point. Then there is no right, before the term was distorted "cuck" was an attack against those types, people(leaders) who can't even stand up to their own beliefs. When was the last time you saw a conservative (one who matters) seriously arguing against homosexuality? It's the norm now something like 12 or so years ago even Obama was against gay marriage if I'm not mistaken. If the right shifts its paradigm that fast then it stands for nothing. Meaningless labels without proper definitions, the current right is an ever shifting set of ideals as I've already stated, leftism is what leftism always was a spiral into insanity, even if you stop on the way like out dear @--ALEX-- someone more zealous will take it further until there is pretty much nothing left (kmer rouge) or the extremists get killed by someone less extreme (stalin & french revolution). Wouldn't that just mean no one cares about conservatism as opposed to conservatism itself having changed? Because there are still people who stand for actual conservatism. There are still Republicans opposed to gay marriage (Ted Cruz iirc), and there are still many Republicans arguing for taking the government out of it entirely because they don't believe you should be forced not to make bad decisions, so basically it's just gotten a little more libertarian. On the social side they still stand for their values, they just don't think they should be imposed via force. I think it's a good thing, and that being as authoritarian as the left is a negative. There should definitely be more people standing up for those values, but I don't think it's fair to say there aren't any at all, and if those were the things they cared about they could fall back on those people. Dildry said: you're making an excuseYou fucking idiots are trying to make excuses for the rise of the alt right and white nationalism? You guys are so retarded. The Alt Right and White Nationalism are reactionary movements to the increasingly globalized world economy/culture in the Western Hemisphere and the direct consequences of globalization of economy and culture have lowered security,increased radicalism on both sides and increased GDPs but loss of jobs in rural America. Thats why the Alt Right exists and also why the Left has become more radical.Fucking idiots havent learned from the Romans,Austro Hungarians or Ottomans how multicultural states end up as. No you little nigger its an accurate assesment on how this shit happend I have seen Iraq go full on race war you faggot its the same shit.You think Iraqis kill each other for the funsies for over a 100 years? No its because Iraq is multi cultural you bigoted idiot.Go read a book einstein. |
|
| Hello there! I've noticed your interest in the Alt-Right and have compiled a FAQ for your further convenience. While you may want to maintain colorblind individualism, we here at Redpill Inc will do our best to provide a simple and easy guide to understanding a surge of interest in the movement! Q: Why do black people get their own month and television channel (BET)? Why can't we just have history and entertainment? A: Shut up racist! Q: Why is Affirmative Action based on race and not opportunity? Couldn't we adjust it to empower those who have the merits but not the means? A: Nazi! Q: Why can't we secure our border and vet immigrants/refugees? Doesn't this help maintain safety for both those entering the country as well as the citizens already here? A: ISLAMOPHOBE! HATER OF MEXICANS! Q: Is it okay for me to identify as a white man? A: Only if you feel guilt. Q: Can I start a "White Student Association" at my university? A: JIM CROW SYMPATHIZER! Q: Hello. I am a registered Democrat and white male. I would like to express my feelings on an issue. A: "My Job Is To Tell White People When To Shut Their Mouths" - Sally Brown, DNC Q: Hey there! I'm a white woman who has recently decided I am Native American. What do I get? A: A job at Harvard and a seat in the Senate. Welcome aboard! Q: Why do people celebrate whites becoming a minority in the USA? Isn't race supposed to be irrelevant? A: WHITE GENOCIDE HOAXER! Q: Why is there a backlash against decades of identity politics that promotes the racial interests of every group except Caucasians? A: Because it's a WHITELASH! |
 |
Ratohnhaketon said: Hello there! I've noticed your interest in the Alt-Right and have compiled a FAQ for your further convenience. While you may want to maintain colorblind individualism, we here at Redpill Inc will do our best to provide a simple and easy guide to understanding a surge of interest in the movement! Q: Why do black people get their own month and television channel (BET)? Why can't we just have history and entertainment? A: Shut up racist! Q: Why is Affirmative Action based on race and not opportunity? Couldn't we adjust it to empower those who have the merits but not the means? A: Nazi! Q: Why can't we secure our border and vet immigrants/refugees? Doesn't this help maintain safety for both those entering the country as well as the citizens already here? A: ISLAMOPHOBE! HATER OF MEXICANS! Q: Is it okay for me to identify as a white man? A: Only if you feel guilt. Q: Can I start a "White Student Association" at my university? A: JIM CROW SYMPATHIZER! Q: Hello. I am a registered Democrat and white male. I would like to express my feelings on an issue. A: "My Job Is To Tell White People When To Shut Their Mouths" - Sally Brown, DNC Q: Hey there! I'm a white woman who has recently decided I am Native American. What do I get? A: A job at Harvard and a seat in the Senate. Welcome aboard! Q: Why do people celebrate whites becoming a minority in the USA? Isn't race supposed to be irrelevant? A: WHITE GENOCIDE HOAXER! Q: Why is there a backlash against decades of identity politics that promotes the racial interests of every group except Caucasians? A: Because it's a WHITELASH! While most of this is good for satire, it would be better to reword this a bit. The FAQ seems to promote both a pro-identity-politics AND anti-identity-politics position at the same time. I really don't think such a contradiction can do anything other than confuse people. |
|
| It's all those left handed loser's fault... without lefties everything would be so simple #rightpower #unitetheright....handed |
  ｍａｌ'ｓ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｒａｃｃｏｏｎ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｂｏｏｐ ! ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｔａｎｔ ｙｅａｒ ｏｆ ２０２６ ｔｈｅＣＹＢＥＲ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｍｅ ! |
--ALEX-- said: So...this is what I'm hearing from many circles on the internet.. "The rise of the Alt-Right is the fault of the Left!" Soooo....let me get this straight....."the Left", and by this they mean SJWs and shit like that....made the Right go so far right that they became Nazis? Someone has to explain this shit to me because it doesn't make sense. >SJWs call White people nazis >White people don't like that and justifiably mock the SJW movement. >However SOME White people get soooo angered by being called nazis....they become nazis! WHAT? When changes happen in society (or in anything for that matter), they're caused by some kind of catalyst. So you need to ask yourself what was the catalyst or the cause of these recent social changes and massive political polarization. It's probably not because people were too bored and suddenly decided: "oh, lets become alt-right!" Since you were particularly interested in Europe and not in the US, here's the explanation: The European Union in its early 1950's history was designed based on Functionalist and Neofunctionalist political theory. In its basic sense this theoretical development in politics was caused by both world wars, both of which were driven by nationalist passions, which culminated in Italian fascism and German nazism. Since the very fundamental basis of the European Union (before it was even called EU) was to create mutual interdependence between European states to prevent any future wars on the continent, they needed to de-facto and de-jure institutionalize complete disregard to all forms of nationalism. Functionalism in its simplest terms views nationalism as the source of all conflicts, therefore views the "nation-state" as the cause of all wars. Naturally, even though the European political elite wasn't very vocal about it, it started working towards the elimination of the "nation" and "nationality" by creating supranational institutions and agreements (which later culminated in the creation of the technocratic European Commission, European Court, the totally powerless European Parliament, and a series of ministerial and presidential councils) - all of whom would govern European countries not as "nations" but as elements of a complex continental union which refuses to identify itself as a confederation nor as a federation. The creation of interdependence between countries that were traditionally hostile to each other, also meant the creation of a value system of mutual tolerance, cooperation, friendliness, collectivism, coupled with anti-nationalism, anti-patriortism, anti-sovereignty and anti-border policies. You could say the very beginning of the "alt-right" in Europe was not the migrant crisis, but rather the rise of Euroskepticism which was caused by the breaking-down of the European "supranational" monster. Individual countries in Europe began to understand that their local sovereign interests are being sacrificed for the benefit of some mythical continental "democratic" government, whom they had never voted into office nor even known the names or seen the faces of - a government which at the fundamental level cares more about increased integration of the continent, less about the individual problems of select countries and regions. The supranational EU institutions were also at the forefront of proposing leftist social/cultural policies which were pushed down the throat of every member state regardless of what the local population really wanted. (including LGBT laws) It is not that the left began to side with the supranational system, but it is rather that the supranational system at its core had to push for left-wing policies in order to ensure the continuation of the European integration process. Hence, it is not surprising that people who are pro-EU are more often left-wing and people who were Euroskeptic (anti-EU) continued to slide towards the right. And the more powerless the right-wing felt against the European left-leaning establishment, the more hostile the right-wing grew both towards the EU project and towards the left-wing itself. However, things exploded with the migrant crisis, when European countries were forced to accept hoards of foreigners onto their territory, and had absolutely zero institutional and legal ability to resist it. This was the most vocal proof of the fact that the sovereignty of these states had indeed been surrendered without their individual approval. On the surface of course this could potentially pass off as a legal, political and ideological conflict only. But the mess the migrants began to create on the ground in cities such as Calais or Budapest, the rising number of terrorist attackers yelling "Allahu Akbar" while killing scores of innocent indigenous Europeans, and the western media's reluctance to acknowledge these problems was the final straw. First people felt betrayed, then they saw the physical evidence of this betrayal, then they saw that their governments and media prefer to turn a blind eye to this betrayal. So the anger grew, year by year, and the left-wing portion of society transformed into a tool of (1) silencing all opposition to the choices of the supranational EU institutions, (2) silencing all opposition to the integration process, (2) silencing all opposition to the left-wing policies perpetuated/defended by the European commission and court. And if the opposition grew too vocal and too active, it would be branded as Nazis, Bigots, Misogynists, Racists, etc. But in all truth, the actual conflict here is not between liberals or nazis, but between two groups: cosmopolitans (anti-sovereignty/anti-nation) and nationalists (pro-sovereignty/pro-nation). This is the fundamental clash of interests, whereas so-called "nazism", "racism", "sjw-ism", "alt-rightness" are only byproducts or branches of the deep polarization and hatred the European society was driven to by the functionalists' social experiment known as the "European integration project" (or the "EU") And yes, the left is to blame for it, hence it did everything in its power to, if not facilitate, then to aid and justify the catastrophic situation European countries ended up in today. But if we step back a little and look at the bigger picture, I could easily see this as an integral process of the Clash of Civilizations which was predicted long ago, which is evidently happening, and which the Left (yet again) refuse to acknowledge. |
TsundereppoiAug 23, 2017 3:38 PM
| ... |
| ^I think nationalism was really a legitimate danger in terms of causing wars at some point, but I think that concern has become non-existent ever since the internet became a common medium in most average households because "people living in other countries" don't seem so alien anymore, as they did before the internet. |
|
Grey-Zone said: ^I think nationalism was really a legitimate danger in terms of causing wars at some point, but I think that concern has become non-existent ever since the internet became a common medium in most average households because "people living in other countries" don't seem so alien anymore, as they did before the internet. The fundamental driver of war, as of all conflicts, is when the opposing sides refuse to listen to each other, or cannot hear each other, or are for some reason unable to acknowledge each other's problems and concerns. (this goes for both: wars between countries and for civil wars within countries) Nationalism certainly tends to make the conflict worse, but nationalism by large is a rallying call which motivates the population to take up arms, however nationalism is not where the conflict itself begins. IMO nationalism is not some experimental flawed ideology, but rather a basic biological instinct of a society. And the more you try to erase or suffocate it, the more violently it will spring back into your face. Which is exactly what's happening today both in Europe and in USA. ==== Here's my personal casualty of this divide. I'm an international student from eastern Europe who did an international relations and politics degree in UK. My degree started before Brexit and ended when Brexit happened. I had a crush in highschool who herself also came to study and work in the UK. Throughout our entire teenhood and adulthood interaction prior to Brexit we were quite friendly and flirty with each other. When the Brexit hysteria started to build, she began to argue against Brexiters on facebook calling them various *cough* names, I began to argue back explaining why UK's exit from the EU would at the very least be morally justifiable, even if not economically (since I studied EU history, EU law/jurisprudence, policies and institutions, it was evident to me that from a moral standpoint EU was unfair towards its member states, plus she wasn't really British herself so she had no moral right to tell Brits what to do with their country) Her reaction to me was to call me a nazi redneck and end our friendship forever. My personal feelings to this were: well, if it's like this, then I don't mind becoming a nazi. |
TsundereppoiAug 23, 2017 4:10 PM
| ... |
Tsundereppoi said: Grey-Zone said: ^I think nationalism was really a legitimate danger in terms of causing wars at some point, but I think that concern has become non-existent ever since the internet became a common medium in most average households because "people living in other countries" don't seem so alien anymore, as they did before the internet. The fundamental driver of war, as of all conflicts, is when the opposing sides refuse to listen to each other, or cannot hear each other, or are for some reason unable to acknowledge each other's problems and concerns. (this goes for both: wars between countries and for civil wars within countries) Nationalism certainly tends to make the conflict worse, but nationalism by large is a rallying call which motivates the population to take up arms, however nationalism is not where the conflict itself begins. IMO nationalism is not some experimental flawed ideology, but rather a basic biological instinct of a society. And the more you try to erase or suffocate it, the more violently it will spring back into your face. Which is exactly what's happening today both in Europe and in USA. But it also used to isolate people within their own nations. What i am saying is that people think that still applies today, but they didn't notice that the arrival of the information age resolved that issue already. At least that's how I see it. |
|
Tsundereppoi said: Grey-Zone said: ^I think nationalism was really a legitimate danger in terms of causing wars at some point, but I think that concern has become non-existent ever since the internet became a common medium in most average households because "people living in other countries" don't seem so alien anymore, as they did before the internet. The fundamental driver of war, as of all conflicts, is when the opposing sides refuse to listen to each other, or cannot hear each other, or are for some reason unable to acknowledge each other's problems and concerns. (this goes for both: wars between countries and for civil wars within countries) Nationalism certainly tends to make the conflict worse, but nationalism by large is a rallying call which motivates the population to take up arms, however nationalism is not where the conflict itself begins. IMO nationalism is not some experimental flawed ideology, but rather a basic biological instinct of a society. And the more you try to erase or suffocate it, the more violently it will spring back into your face. Which is exactly what's happening today both in Europe and in USA. ==== Here's my personal casualty of this divide. I'm an international student from eastern Europe who did an international relations and politics degree in UK. My degree started before Brexit and ended when Brexit happened. I had a crush in highschool who herself also came to study and work in the UK. Throughout our entire teenhood and adulthood interaction prior to Brexit we were quite friendly and flirty with each other. When the Brexit hysteria started to build, she began to argue against Brexiters on facebook calling them various *cough* names, I began to argue back explaining why UK's exit from the EU would at the very least be morally justifiable, even if not economically (since I studied EU history, EU law/jurisprudence, policies and institutions, it was evident to me that from a moral standpoint EU was unfair towards its member states, plus she wasn't really British herself so she had no moral right to tell Brits what to do with their country) Her reaction to me was to call me a nazi redneck and end our friendship forever. My personal feelings to this were: well, if it's like this, then I don't mind becoming a nazi. The conflict begins when two nationalisms collide |
Grey-Zone said: Tsundereppoi said: The fundamental driver of war, as of all conflicts, is when the opposing sides refuse to listen to each other, or cannot hear each other, or are for some reason unable to acknowledge each other's problems and concerns. (this goes for both: wars between countries and for civil wars within countries) Nationalism certainly tends to make the conflict worse, but nationalism by large is a rallying call which motivates the population to take up arms, however nationalism is not where the conflict itself begins. IMO nationalism is not some experimental flawed ideology, but rather a basic biological instinct of a society. And the more you try to erase or suffocate it, the more violently it will spring back into your face. Which is exactly what's happening today both in Europe and in USA. But it also used to isolate people within their own nations. What i am saying is that people think that still applies today, but they didn't notice that the arrival of the information age resolved that issue already. At least that's how I see it. I would disagree in part. One of the reasons is that despite there being a large information space, language and media barriers still exist, whilst people by large don't have enough free time to spend everyday thinking or confirming the information they hear from their friends or on the news. Look at the Syrian civil war or the Ukrainian civil war as an example. The information age is at its peak, but the majority of people in the west still believe that there are "good and bad" rebels in Syria, or that all rebels in Ukraine are "russians", and that Putin wants to eat your babies alive. Or for example a large portion of western Ukraine still believes they're actually fighting an all out war with Russia in the east. A large information environment is nice and all, but at the end of the day, those who dominate this information environment are the ones who get to decide what the majority of the population should or shouldn't believe. For example look at the Crimean conflict. Russia's annexation of the peninsula was portrayed as an act of war in western press. But after western survey agencies confirmed that the majority of the Crimean population wanted to reunite with Russia, those surveys went unnoticed by the major press. The political goal of the west was to convince the population in a particular interpretation of the events, and prevent all other interpretations from receiving too much publicity, and it worked, and it justified the sanctions war. Same goes for the Minsk agreement. Western press says absolutely nothing about Kiev's violations of the agreement, and only publicized eastern violations - this again serves as a justification of further conflict between the west and Russia. And the root of it all, again, is not isolation nor the degree of access to information, nor nationalism, but the refusal (or inability) to hear each other or to acknowledge each other. |
TsundereppoiAug 23, 2017 4:28 PM
| ... |
Your point of view is flawed, because it then doesn't explain civil wars inside a singe homogeneous nation. |
| ... |
Tsundereppoi said: Your point of view is flawed, because it then doesn't explain civil wars inside a singe homogeneous nation. I have never said it was the only explanation. I was just adding something related to nationalism |
Anowser said: Tsundereppoi said: Your point of view is flawed, because it then doesn't explain civil wars inside a singe homogeneous nation. I have never said it was the only explanation. I was just adding something related to nationalism The whole premise of my posts is to show that nationalism is not the cause of war because wars happen inside nations, between nations, between coalitions of nations, and you waltz in posting something like "The conflict begins when two nationalisms collide" |
| ... |
Tsundereppoi said: Grey-Zone said: But it also used to isolate people within their own nations. What i am saying is that people think that still applies today, but they didn't notice that the arrival of the information age resolved that issue already. At least that's how I see it. I would disagree in part. One of the reasons is that despite there being a large information space, language and media barriers still exist, whilst people by large don't have enough free time to spend everyday thinking or confirming the information they hear from their friends or on the news. Look at the Syrian civil war or the Ukrainian civil war as an example. The information age is at its peak, but the majority of people in the west still believe that there are "good and bad" rebels in Syria, or that all rebels in Ukraine are "russians", and that Putin wants to eat your babies alive. Or for example a large portion of western Ukraine still believes they're actually fighting an all out war with Russia in the east. A large information environment is nice and all, but at the end of the day, those who dominate this information environment are the ones who get to decide what the majority of the population should or shouldn't believe. For example look at the Crimean conflict. Russia's annexation of the peninsula was portrayed as an act of war in western press. But after western survey agencies confirmed that the majority of the Crimean population wanted to reunite with Russia, those surveys went unnoticed by the major press. The political goal of the west was to convince the population in a particular interpretation of the events, and prevent all other interpretations from receiving too much publicity, and it worked, and it justified the sanctions war. Same goes for the Minsk agreement. Western press says absolutely nothing about Kiev's violations of the agreement, and only publicized eastern violations - this again serves as a justification of further conflict between the west and Russia. And the root of it all, again, is not isolation nor the degree of access to information, nor nationalism, but the refusal (or inability) to hear each other or to acknowledge each other. What you say isn't wrong, but the long-distance conflicts aren't really what I am getting at here as those are not really targets for actual annexation. In general annexation only becomes realistic if you are directly connected to that piece of land or at least having nothing in-between the space that can be too problematic. So I am mostly talking about direct neighbours here and for that case people can inform themselves quite easily when necessary or are already informed. In western countries, aside from maybe Russia, I doubt any country would be able to just go and annex a neighbour. People seem to be generally anti-war these days, both on the left and right. To a large degree probably because unlike the last century you are able to get to hear what the "other side" says instead of being helpless against the propaganda of your own country, so the country loses their information monopoly. While information is still being manipulated to some extent by the nations for political reasons, unless you have something like China's great firewall, it won't stop anyone who wants to take a look at the other side. |
|
Dildry said: You fucking idiots are trying to make excuses for the rise of the alt right and white nationalism? You guys are so retarded. The Alt Right and White Nationalism are reactionary movements to the increasingly globalized world economy/culture in the Western Hemisphere and the direct consequences of globalization of economy and culture have lowered security,increased radicalism on both sides and increased GDPs but loss of jobs in rural America. Thats why the Alt Right exists and also why the Left has become more radical.Fucking idiots havent learned from the Romans,Austro Hungarians or Ottomans how multicultural states end up as. "WOWZERS U GUYS SURE ARE RETARDED, HERE LET ME EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEANT, BUT MORE SPECIFIC. GEEZE I SURE PROVED U GUYS WRONG, LOL, RETARDS." |
Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
Grey-Zone said: 2017 is one giant contradiction.Ratohnhaketon said: Hello there! I've noticed your interest in the Alt-Right and have compiled a FAQ for your further convenience. While you may want to maintain colorblind individualism, we here at Redpill Inc will do our best to provide a simple and easy guide to understanding a surge of interest in the movement! Q: Why do black people get their own month and television channel (BET)? Why can't we just have history and entertainment? A: Shut up racist! Q: Why is Affirmative Action based on race and not opportunity? Couldn't we adjust it to empower those who have the merits but not the means? A: Nazi! Q: Why can't we secure our border and vet immigrants/refugees? Doesn't this help maintain safety for both those entering the country as well as the citizens already here? A: ISLAMOPHOBE! HATER OF MEXICANS! Q: Is it okay for me to identify as a white man? A: Only if you feel guilt. Q: Can I start a "White Student Association" at my university? A: JIM CROW SYMPATHIZER! Q: Hello. I am a registered Democrat and white male. I would like to express my feelings on an issue. A: "My Job Is To Tell White People When To Shut Their Mouths" - Sally Brown, DNC Q: Hey there! I'm a white woman who has recently decided I am Native American. What do I get? A: A job at Harvard and a seat in the Senate. Welcome aboard! Q: Why do people celebrate whites becoming a minority in the USA? Isn't race supposed to be irrelevant? A: WHITE GENOCIDE HOAXER! Q: Why is there a backlash against decades of identity politics that promotes the racial interests of every group except Caucasians? A: Because it's a WHITELASH! While most of this is good for satire, it would be better to reword this a bit. The FAQ seems to promote both a pro-identity-politics AND anti-identity-politics position at the same time. I really don't think such a contradiction can do anything other than confuse people. I'd say it's meant to be a bit of both. Some people initially start out anti-identity and then get "redpilled" into the alt-right because of vitriolic responses such as the above. But simply describing the alt-right's rise as a reaction is missing a fundamental piece of the puzzle. After following the inner circles of the alt-right for nearly a year, I think I've witnessed something that few care to admit or appreciate. The Alt-Right has a growing appeal behind it. They don't censor people's thoughts, police their ideas, or condemn controversial opinions. On the contrary, they encourage discourse of all kinds, have a rather liberal sense of humor and are even willing to discuss subjects that may seem detrimental to their cause. Whereas you're instantly labeled a racist by the DNC if you dare suggest voter ID laws, many alt-right leaders are willing to talk about whether it's okay for Jews to join the movement. Additionally, many of those leaders are extremely articulate & well read. They run circles around mainstream lapdogs, often making their opposition appear as fools even when their adversaries may actually be in the right. The last component I'd like to mention is that the alt-right is providing a sense of purpose to those who join (namely disgruntled young white men). It's becoming counter-culture and that only becomes more apparent as both establishment parties condemn and refuse to talk about it, much less learn what it is. I can guarantee I know more about the alt-right than the entirety of the Senate and Congress combined. None of this is an endorsement of the alt-right, of course. I do, however, have a strange admiration for their ability to outmaneuver all odds. The mainstream better be extremely careful; the American Revolution was won by underdogs who were on the verge of collapse. |
ZekkenshinAug 23, 2017 5:51 PM
|
omfgplzstop said: It's not two truths, it's two perspectives trying to reach the truth. It can't really happen without both sides talking to eachother, which is why I think authoritarianism is a bad thing. Not that it's the only obstacle, but still. And this that you said right here is why conservatives always lose. It is true that we don't have full understanding of material reality but one way will still be closer to what is good and true than the other, the fact that you want dialogue in the first place already puts you a position to concede, you're already negotiating, and want some kind of synthesis of both positions, which is impossible if one of them wrong. The left never negotiates unless they really have to and if they lose they'll be back at it 5 years later at which point the right steps back and gets irreversibly changed. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |