...is something I BEEN seeing more and more (over the past 3 years) and even on this board.

The Boston Globe even kicked out this article last week:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/02/defense-white-male/Me9UoUrcPbcljxRkPFlXAP/story.html




The argument:

White people are under attack.

Whiteness is under attack.

Its not ok to be a straight white male.

NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST.

You like that penicillin and that computer you using right? You're welcome b.

etc etc etc, until your eyes fall out of your head.


https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/1/12/Helen_Lovejoy_Tapped_Out.png/revision/latest?cb=20150531020148




Boston Globe article swipe:
EVERYWHERE I TURN these days I encounter the term “white male,” almost always used in a pejorative way. I understand the reasons for this. There are abundant examples — both in history and current events — of boorish and evil white men. Hitler comes to mind. Stalin. Mussolini. On a much lesser scale, certain unmentionables in present-day D.C.

For one example, it’s not difficult to look at the assembled power brokers of the Republican congress, smiling as they eliminate funds for the health care of women, and see them as part of an evil empire of powerful, pale-skinned, masculine creatures. And I’ve met enough obnoxious white men in my own life to understand the contemptuous tone in which “white male” is so often used.

But these blanket condemnations are part of a very narrow and skewed reading of both history and current events. While it’s certainly true that white men have started wars, participated in torture, and committed rape, they/we have not cornered the market on evil behavior. Idi Amin comes to mind. Pol Pot. Baby Doc Duvalier. Hirohito.

Not to mention certain notorious female camp guards and serial killers.

It’s not hard to argue that white men have done more harm in history — from the keeping of slaves to the genocide of Native Americans, and a thousand other examples — than any other single group. But it can also be argued that they have done more good — in combatting evil regimes, in developing medicines, in inventing everything from the automobile to the cellphone to various methods of birth control. White men discovered penicillin, Novocain, the drug regimen used to treat people afflicted with AIDS. In many places the chances are good that if your home is on fire, it will be a white man who comes to put it out. And, if it were not for the millions of white men who gave their lives in World War II, we might all be starting the work day with the Nazi salute.

Associating us only with evil deeds, selfishness, and violence is as misguided as making general disparaging statements about any other group: women, blacks, Muslims, homosexuals. Yet, in certain circles, it has become acceptable — even laudable — to do just that.

Not long ago I had an exchange with a former student of mine — we were discussing women’s rights and abusive men — and she told me I had no right to speak on the subject. “We were made to be silent for millennia,” she said, “now it’s your turn.” That kind of revenge must be satisfying, and particularly soothing to those who’ve been hurt by men — no small number. Ultimately, though, understandable as it may be, the impulse toward revenge leads nowhere except to a seesaw of oppression and fury.

I thought of arguing with her that my right to speak on those issues derives from the fact that I have two daughters and have been married for 38 years to the same good woman. But those aren’t the true reasons. The true reason is that I am a human being, and the welfare of all human beings concerns me.

At the root of the oppression of women, an oppression which denied and continues to deny them equal status and opportunity, was what Hemingway — a quintessential white male, much in disfavor in certain circles now — called “those dirty, easy labels.” For centuries, females were considered less intelligent, less dependable, fickle, flighty, hysterical. That was the rap, and it infiltrated the culture in everything from hiring practices to the naming of hurricanes.

From Jews to African-Americans to homosexuals to Irish, Italian, and now Middle Eastern immigrants, hatred began by tossing all of them into a group, and attributing to that group the most unattractive characteristics imaginable. What is being done to “white males” now, it should go without saying, is not on a par with what was done to those people. But the instinct to label and blame is born of the same kind of group-think.

Maybe one fine day we’ll learn to eschew labels, or at least see beyond them, and focus on the humanity we share.

Poll question: Are white people under (cultural) attack?

Poll result (22 votes) Nope. This is what equality feels like. (18 votes) Vote Yes. Think of the children. (2 votes) Vote Uh? (2 votes) Vote Blackish? What if we had a show called Whiteish! (0 votes) Vote

https://media.giphy.com/media/UvFjFWWkrqEXS/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/hu2txHA8lhGNO/giphy.gif

The invention of whiteness is one of the worst things to happen to Europeans as it robbed them of any kind of cultural identity, humanity, or relatabilty

Imagine how much better the country would be had it included black people in its early development? Or rather had it allowed Africans to be Africans alongside Irish, Swedes, etc.

AKA FOH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing

.
.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Plato

literally

Clint Eastwood is their ideal
nothing 'cool' abt Clint in today's world....or should I say...he ONLY appeals to a specific vanilla demographic

but there is a saying about reaping and seamstresses or something

fuck'em

society....


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Which is just a matter of demographics.

I think everyone should welcome it, but I also don't think any group gives up there power willingly.


My big question is Trump the last spastic kick of a dying Worldview or the beginning of a renewed effort to create a white ethnostate.



>...is something I BEEN seeing more and more (over the past 3
>years) and even on this board. >perspective of feeling attacked is something I see, not an
>"attack"]
>
>The Boston Globe even kicked out this article last week:
>https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/02/defense-white-male/Me9UoUrcPbcljxRkPFlXAP/story.html
>
>
>
>
>The argument:
>
>White people are under attack.
>
>Whiteness is under attack.
>
>Its not ok to be a straight white male.
>
>NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST.
>
>You like that penicillin and that computer you using right?
>You're welcome b.
>
>etc etc etc, until your eyes fall out of your head.
>
>
>https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/1/12/Helen_Lovejoy_Tapped_Out.png/revision/latest?cb=20150531020148
>
>
>
>
>Boston Globe article swipe:
>EVERYWHERE I TURN these days I encounter the term “white
>male,” almost always used in a pejorative way. I understand
>the reasons for this. There are abundant examples — both in
>history and current events — of boorish and evil white men.
>Hitler comes to mind. Stalin. Mussolini. On a much lesser
>scale, certain unmentionables in present-day D.C.
>
>For one example, it’s not difficult to look at the assembled
>power brokers of the Republican congress, smiling as they
>eliminate funds for the health care of women, and see them as
>part of an evil empire of powerful, pale-skinned, masculine
>creatures. And I’ve met enough obnoxious white men in my own
>life to understand the contemptuous tone in which “white
>male” is so often used.
>
>But these blanket condemnations are part of a very narrow and
>skewed reading of both history and current events. While
>it’s certainly true that white men have started wars,
>participated in torture, and committed rape, they/we have not
>cornered the market on evil behavior. Idi Amin comes to mind.
>Pol Pot. Baby Doc Duvalier. Hirohito.
>
>Not to mention certain notorious female camp guards and serial
>killers.
>
>It’s not hard to argue that white men have done more harm in
>history — from the keeping of slaves to the genocide of
>Native Americans, and a thousand other examples — than any
>other single group. But it can also be argued that they have
>done more good — in combatting evil regimes, in developing
>medicines, in inventing everything from the automobile to the
>cellphone to various methods of birth control. White men
>discovered penicillin, Novocain, the drug regimen used to
>treat people afflicted with AIDS. In many places the chances
>are good that if your home is on fire, it will be a white man
>who comes to put it out. And, if it were not for the millions
>of white men who gave their lives in World War II, we might
>all be starting the work day with the Nazi salute.
>
>Associating us only with evil deeds, selfishness, and violence
>is as misguided as making general disparaging statements about
>any other group: women, blacks, Muslims, homosexuals. Yet, in
>certain circles, it has become acceptable — even laudable
>— to do just that.
>
>Not long ago I had an exchange with a former student of mine
>— we were discussing women’s rights and abusive men —
>and she told me I had no right to speak on the subject. “We
>were made to be silent for millennia,” she said, “now
>it’s your turn.” That kind of revenge must be satisfying,
>and particularly soothing to those who’ve been hurt by men
>— no small number. Ultimately, though, understandable as it
>may be, the impulse toward revenge leads nowhere except to a
>seesaw of oppression and fury.
>
>I thought of arguing with her that my right to speak on those
>issues derives from the fact that I have two daughters and
>have been married for 38 years to the same good woman. But
>those aren’t the true reasons. The true reason is that I am
>a human being, and the welfare of all human beings concerns
>me.
>
>At the root of the oppression of women, an oppression which
>denied and continues to deny them equal status and
>opportunity, was what Hemingway — a quintessential white
>male, much in disfavor in certain circles now — called
>“those dirty, easy labels.” For centuries, females were
>considered less intelligent, less dependable, fickle, flighty,
>hysterical. That was the rap, and it infiltrated the culture
>in everything from hiring practices to the naming of
>hurricanes.
>
>From Jews to African-Americans to homosexuals to Irish,
>Italian, and now Middle Eastern immigrants, hatred began by
>tossing all of them into a group, and attributing to that
>group the most unattractive characteristics imaginable. What
>is being done to “white males” now, it should go without
>saying, is not on a par with what was done to those people.
>But the instinct to label and blame is born of the same kind
>of group-think.
>
>Maybe one fine day we’ll learn to eschew labels, or at least
>see beyond them, and focus on the humanity we share.
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Immigration is white genocide
Everything is white genocide

combined with women waiting longer to have children and fewer of them.

I wonder if that's the true white genocide?

On diversity

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

Birth of a Nation, the DW Griffith one, was the OG white people are under attack movie and that shit came out in 1915.

white people claiming they are under attack is the driving force of racism and always has been. when white people say they are under attack, they are ON the attack.

The excuses police use for killing Black people
kinda tells you everything about white psychosis.
"Stop resisting"... "I feared for my life"...

About the original Birth Of A Nation, I always
think it's important to note that Black men were
SCIENTIFICALLY considered rapists at that time.
They always fabricate a threat to combat as
the reason they have to come for us.
This is no different.

https://media.giphy.com/media/9uoYC7cjcU6w8/giphy.gif

.

All true

hell yeah.

thus far. end post.

Cultural Marxism, Umvolkung, etc. Of course most of the racist dimwits using these terms don't realize they're basically rehashing Nazi propaganda tools, but that doesn't really make it less unsettling.

>...is something I BEEN seeing more and more (over the past 3
>years) and even on this board. >perspective of feeling attacked is something I see, not an
>"attack"]
>
>The Boston Globe even kicked out this article last week:
>https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/02/defense-white-male/Me9UoUrcPbcljxRkPFlXAP/story.html
>
>
>
>
>The argument:
>
>White people are under attack.
>
>Whiteness is under attack.
>
>Its not ok to be a straight white male.
>
>NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST.
>
>You like that penicillin and that computer you using right?
>You're welcome b.
>
>etc etc etc, until your eyes fall out of your head.
>
>
>https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/1/12/Helen_Lovejoy_Tapped_Out.png/revision/latest?cb=20150531020148
>
>
>
>
>Boston Globe article swipe:
>EVERYWHERE I TURN these days I encounter the term “white
>male,” almost always used in a pejorative way. I understand
>the reasons for this. There are abundant examples — both in
>history and current events — of boorish and evil white men.
>Hitler comes to mind. Stalin. Mussolini. On a much lesser
>scale, certain unmentionables in present-day D.C.
>
>For one example, it’s not difficult to look at the assembled
>power brokers of the Republican congress, smiling as they
>eliminate funds for the health care of women, and see them as
>part of an evil empire of powerful, pale-skinned, masculine
>creatures. And I’ve met enough obnoxious white men in my own
>life to understand the contemptuous tone in which “white
>male” is so often used.
>
>But these blanket condemnations are part of a very narrow and
>skewed reading of both history and current events. While
>it’s certainly true that white men have started wars,
>participated in torture, and committed rape, they/we have not
>cornered the market on evil behavior. Idi Amin comes to mind.
>Pol Pot. Baby Doc Duvalier. Hirohito.
>
>Not to mention certain notorious female camp guards and serial
>killers.
>
>It’s not hard to argue that white men have done more harm in
>history — from the keeping of slaves to the genocide of
>Native Americans, and a thousand other examples — than any
>other single group. But it can also be argued that they have
>done more good — in combatting evil regimes, in developing
>medicines, in inventing everything from the automobile to the
>cellphone to various methods of birth control. White men
>discovered penicillin, Novocain, the drug regimen used to
>treat people afflicted with AIDS. In many places the chances
>are good that if your home is on fire, it will be a white man
>who comes to put it out. And, if it were not for the millions
>of white men who gave their lives in World War II, we might
>all be starting the work day with the Nazi salute.
>
>Associating us only with evil deeds, selfishness, and violence
>is as misguided as making general disparaging statements about
>any other group: women, blacks, Muslims, homosexuals. Yet, in
>certain circles, it has become acceptable — even laudable
>— to do just that.
>
>Not long ago I had an exchange with a former student of mine
>— we were discussing women’s rights and abusive men —
>and she told me I had no right to speak on the subject. “We
>were made to be silent for millennia,” she said, “now
>it’s your turn.” That kind of revenge must be satisfying,
>and particularly soothing to those who’ve been hurt by men
>— no small number. Ultimately, though, understandable as it
>may be, the impulse toward revenge leads nowhere except to a
>seesaw of oppression and fury.
>
>I thought of arguing with her that my right to speak on those
>issues derives from the fact that I have two daughters and
>have been married for 38 years to the same good woman. But
>those aren’t the true reasons. The true reason is that I am
>a human being, and the welfare of all human beings concerns
>me.
>
>At the root of the oppression of women, an oppression which
>denied and continues to deny them equal status and
>opportunity, was what Hemingway — a quintessential white
>male, much in disfavor in certain circles now — called
>“those dirty, easy labels.” For centuries, females were
>considered less intelligent, less dependable, fickle, flighty,
>hysterical. That was the rap, and it infiltrated the culture
>in everything from hiring practices to the naming of
>hurricanes.
>
>From Jews to African-Americans to homosexuals to Irish,
>Italian, and now Middle Eastern immigrants, hatred began by
>tossing all of them into a group, and attributing to that
>group the most unattractive characteristics imaginable. What
>is being done to “white males” now, it should go without
>saying, is not on a par with what was done to those people.
>But the instinct to label and blame is born of the same kind
>of group-think.
>
>Maybe one fine day we’ll learn to eschew labels, or at least
>see beyond them, and focus on the humanity we share.
>

>

those that aren't certainly aren't suffering because of their whiteness. it's used as a wedge when those people should be looking at things like the structure of our economy, healthcare and the rest of the safety net, access to education and training.

i also think it's funny there's a lot of overlap between people who whine about "participation trophies" and people who think europeans and european culture aren't getting enough recognition.

All empirical evidence say white males are doing great.
Spencer will tell you that, yes, white people are doing
fine, but he wants to make sure it stays that way.
In order to do that, they have to fabricate a threat
to themselves from scientifically naming Black men
rapists, to white women using that during suffrage,
to white knights doing the same, to eugenics, to
now this BS.
White people (men AND women) have done this for over
200 years, and Spencer wants to make it mainstream again.

Funny observation... I don't watch South Park, but I
saw it back in like 2000 while I was flipping channels,
and they were on a hunting trip. The director told the
group that they can't just shoot a deer for no reason...
so they had to yell "IT'S COMIN RIGHT FOR US" so it'd
be justified. There was a deer drinking at a pond about
200 feet away. He yelled the code and shot a rocket, killing
the deer lol. I know they were probably just making fun
of hunters, but I always saw it as a joke about white psychosis.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

Especially with the black bear, and the africa & democrat comments.

When I saw it, I missed the first comment about
there being "a lot of black people in Africa."
The part about not being able to shoot "unless
they're posing an immediate threat" always stuck
with me though. I'm thinking there was more killing
in the episode than in the clip, but that's
definitely the episode.

It sucks, but when I read their hateful comments all over the internet I actually celebrate their herion deaths

but then I'm like if it takes these people with me/us then so be it as it's for the greater good

but I learned what causes it!

Yes but so are the other many tribes. That's what democracy does. It pits groups against one another in a scramble for control of the state apparatus. There is a very clear coalition of tribes that has identified the white man tribe as being an evil influence in society.

The most powerful of these oppositional tribes is white progressives. A spoiled group of pseudo-intellectuals and blinkered academics that very desperately want to control society with the state. They believe they will achieve salvation if they bring about equality of outcome to all mankind. They are the offspring of fanatical 19th century pietists. They don't understand economics so they try to achieve equality through brute force and confiscation of wealth through taxes. They use the taxes to conduct grand sociological experiments, mostly on minority communities.

The white man tribe used to control everything. State and economy. Now they only control the economy because they are actually pretty good at capitalism. Before the progressives gained control of the state, economic equality between Blacks and Whites was well underway. See Thomas Sowell. Only since the Great Society programs has the trend stagnated or even reversed by some measures, the result of progressives' grand experiments' having distorted the social structure of minority communities and making them beholden to government whims and dictates.

The progressives have controlled the state since at least the Great Society, but their repeated failure to bring equality of outcome is always blamed on the white man tribe and visible members of it (Reagan, though he was actually a New Deal Democrat in action). The progressives and other tribes opposed to the white man tribe think the path to equality and therefore salvation is to be achieved by stripping the white man tribe of its wealth and social status.

The white man tribe saw Trump as a strong man figure to give the opposing tribes a punch in the face. He may have delivered said punch, but it was an empty gesture. Trump will not make any headway in preventing the progressive state from continuing the way it has for decades. The most powerful in the white man tribe is committing self-genocide by slowly adopting the values of the white progressive tribe. This can be seen in America's changing corporate culture.

>Yes but so are the other many tribes. That's what democracy
>does. It pits groups against one another in a scramble for
>control of the state apparatus.

Capitalism doesn't do that ?

There is a very clear
>coalition of tribes that has identified the white man tribe as
>being an evil influence in society.

The "white man tribe" didn't do anything to reinforce that ?

>The most powerful of these oppositional tribes is white
>progressives. A spoiled group of pseudo-intellectuals and
>blinkered academics that very desperately want to control
>society with the state.

They are the most powerful but they couldn't stop Trump or the Republican Congress from taking control of the state ?

They believe they will achieve
>salvation if they bring about equality of outcome to all
>mankind. They are the offspring of fanatical 19th century
>pietists. They don't understand economics so they try to
>achieve equality through brute force and confiscation of
>wealth through taxes. They use the taxes to conduct grand
>sociological experiments, mostly on minority communities.
>

Did any of these taxes go to programs that helped whites and excluded Black communities ? Sounds like you are giving the white man tribe progressives too much credit.

>The white man tribe used to control everything. State and
>economy. Now they only control the economy because they are
>actually pretty good at capitalism. Before the progressives
>gained control of the state, economic equality between Blacks
>and Whites was well underway. See Thomas Sowell. Only since
>the Great Society programs has the trend stagnated or even
>reversed by some measure, the result of progressives' grand
>experiments' having distorted the social structure of minority
>communities and making them beholden to government whims and
>dictates.
>

The tech bubble, S&L loan scandal, Housing bubble is good capitalism ? So you and Thomas Sowell believe Blacks and Whites would be closer to economic equality today if it wasn't for the Great Society programs ? What about the tribe that can't handle the success of Black communities, would capitalism stop them ?


>The progressives have controlled the state since at least the
>Great Society, but their repeated failure to bring equality of
>outcome is always blamed on the white man tribe and visible
>members of it (Reagan, though he was actually a New Deal
>Democrat in action). The progressives and other tribes opposed
>to the white man tribe think the path to equality and
>therefore salvation is to be achieved by stripping the white
>man tribe of its wealth and social status.
>

So Reagan is part of the white man tribe but he's not really because he was faking it ? Progressives have a tribe that's different from that white man tribe and it is the most powerful "oppositional" tribe ?

>The white man tribe saw Trump as a strong man figure to give
>the opposing tribes a punch in the face. He may have delivered
>said punch, but it was an empty gesture. Trump will not make
>any headway in preventing the progressive state from
>continuing the way it has for decades. The most powerful in
>the white man tribe is committing self-genocide by slowly
>adopting the values of the white progressive tribe. This can
>be seen in America's changing corporate culture.
>

So it's all progressives fault ? It's another group that uses white genocide, are you in that tribe ?

>Capitalism doesn't do that ?

In capitalism, companies and individuals compete in order to better service the consumer. This is different from the competition in democracy where groups compete in order to control other groups.

>The "white man tribe" didn't do anything to reinforce that ?

Yes, upon re-reading I realized I was too easy on the white man tribe. As the controller of the government, that tribe did unbelievable damage to other groups.

>They are the most powerful but they couldn't stop Trump or the
>Republican Congress from taking control of the state ?

They are the most powerful of the oppositional tribes. Trump won because he faced Clinton, and even so he won on a technicality. Republicans solidly control congress but the key progressive achievements of the last 50-60 years are not under any threat, despite alarmist rhetoric from Maddow et al. The progressive ship of government will steam on unimpeded as it did under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

>Did any of these taxes go to programs that helped whites and
>excluded Black communities ? Sounds like you are giving the
>white man tribe progressives too much credit.

Yes I did. Witness the soaring cost of public education and higher learning. Progressives dump billions into programs that benefit institutions they have controlled for decades at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. They enlarged the government bureaucracy and filled it with thousands of well paid progressives. This has occurred at all levels of government. On an ideological level, they have manipulated history curriculums and placed white progressive saviours at the center of American history.

>The tech bubble, S&L loan scandal, Housing bubble is good
>capitalism ?

No. Good capitalism is free market capitalism. Progressives control the federal reserve and regulatory agencies(with input from crony corporations). They believe they can centrally plan the economy, but fail repeatedly. In the process, the crony corporations get rich and the bureaucracy grows, supposedly to prevent future crises. They in fact thrive on crises.

So you and Thomas Sowell believe Blacks and
>Whites would be closer to economic equality today if it wasn't
>for the Great Society programs ?

That is what I have garnered from his writing, yes. The trend was already going in that direction.

What about the tribe that
>can't handle the success of Black communities, would
>capitalism stop them ?



The consumers are king under capitalism. They don't care who makes the superior product, they care that it is superior. Evidence for this is the millions of white racists that spend thousands of dollars on Asian goods and Hispanic services. They may talk shit about the "foreigners" and how they are "taking jobs", but they keep coming back for more. Asian millionaires are sprouting up all over the place. They don't fear white racists and people who resent their success. They fear the taxing and regulatory power of the government. If you reduce the ability to tax and regulate, you lower barriers to entry for groups that have not seen the levels of success they otherwise would.

>So Reagan is part of the white man tribe but he's not really
>because he was faking it ?

He had many people fooled. Maybe even himself, he was pretty dim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-reagan-an-fdr-democrat-in-gop-clothing/2017/07/14/9b7893c2-463e-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?utm_term=.27d433ed87e8

Progressives have a tribe that's
>different from that white man tribe and it is the most
>powerful "oppositional" tribe ?

I think so, yes. You can see in this thread white men who express a dislike for that tribe.

>So it's all progressives fault ?

No. The white man tribe does deserve much criticism for the way it used the government to enrich itself, but I think in many ways the progressives are worse.

It's another group that uses
>white genocide, are you in that tribe ?

I am against democracy, especially centralized leviathan states like the US govt, so I don't participate in the tribal conflicts. But I'm white if that's what you are asking.

>
>In capitalism, companies and individuals compete in order to
>better service the consumer. This is different from the
>competition in democracy where groups compete in order to
>control other groups.
>

In capitalism companies compete to exploit and control other groups, when those companies are not working together to take advantage of other groups.


>Yes, upon re-reading I realized I was too easy on the white
>man tribe. As the controller of the government, that tribe did
>unbelievable damage to other groups.

You are still going too easy when you say progressives are the worst.


>They are the most powerful of the oppositional tribes. Trump
>won because he faced Clinton, and even so he won on a
>technicality. Republicans solidly control congress but the key
>progressive achievements of the last 50-60 years are not under
>any threat, despite alarmist rhetoric from Maddow et al. The
>progressive ship of government will steam on unimpeded as it
>did under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>

Technicality ? You mean the electoral college ? Trump won because of racism had nothing to do with who he faced. It's not alarmist rhetoric, they repealed Glass–Steagall which was older than 60 years.

>>Did any of these taxes go to programs that helped whites and
>>excluded Black communities ? Sounds like you are giving the
>>white man tribe progressives too much credit.
>
>Yes I did. Witness the soaring cost of public education and
>higher learning. Progressives dump billions into programs that
>benefit institutions they have controlled for decades at the
>expense of consumers and taxpayers. They enlarged the
>government bureaucracy and filled it with thousands of well
>paid progressives. This has occurred at all levels of
>government. On an ideological level, they have manipulated
>history curriculums and placed white progressive saviours at
>the center of American history.
>

They did all that while the group that you call the white tribe attacks textbooks, voting rights and access, the courts, press, and lay the foundation for a police state.


>
>No. Good capitalism is free market capitalism. Progressives
>control the federal reserve and regulatory agencies(with input
>from crony corporations). They believe they can centrally plan
>the economy, but fail repeatedly. In the process, the crony
>corporations get rich and the bureaucracy grows, supposedly to
>prevent future crises. They in fact thrive on crises.
>

You believe these corporations and the economy will improve with a hands off low taxes plan ? You want less taxes and regulations on monopolies and companies that price fix ? You want the nation to follow Kansas failed tax cuts experiment or do you want more judges sending people to jail because of private prison profits ?

>So you and Thomas Sowell believe Blacks and
>>Whites would be closer to economic equality today if it
>wasn't
>>for the Great Society programs ?
>


>That is what I have garnered from his writing, yes. The trend
>was already going in that direction.

Have you heard of Black Wall Street, Rosewood, and what happen to these successful Black communities across the nation ?


>
>The consumers are king under capitalism. They don't care who
>makes the superior product, they care that it is superior.
>Evidence for this is the millions of white racists that spend
>thousands of dollars on Asian goods and Hispanic services.
>They may talk shit about the "foreigners" and how they are
>"taking jobs", but they keep coming back for more. Asian
>millionaires are sprouting up all over the place. They don't
>fear white racists and people who resent their success. They
>fear the taxing and regulatory power of the government. If you
>reduce the ability to tax and regulate, you lower barriers to
>entry for groups that have not seen the levels of success they
>otherwise would.
>

Consumers are not going to stop discrimination and attacks on the Black community. You can't make the superior product if you are shut out of the market. What can those Asian millionaires do when they come up against monopolies or companies working together to drive them out of business ?

>>So Reagan is part of the white man tribe but he's not really
>>because he was faking it ?
>
>He had many people fooled. Maybe even himself, he was pretty
>dim.
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-reagan-an-fdr-democrat-in-gop-clothing/2017/07/14/9b7893c2-463e-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?utm_term=.27d433ed87e8
>

The same crowd that says lower taxes and deregulation looks at Reagan as the savior of conservatives.

>
>I think so, yes. You can see in this thread white men who
>express a dislike for that tribe.

Different side of the same coin.

>>So it's all progressives fault ?
>
>No. The white man tribe does deserve much criticism for the
>way it used the government to enrich itself, but I think in
>many ways the progressives are worse.
>

They did more than just enrich, they birthed Trump.


>
>I am against democracy, especially centralized leviathan
>states like the US govt, so I don't participate in the tribal
>conflicts. But I'm white if that's what you are asking.

I'm asking if you are alt-right.

Meaning it acts on the best interests of the tribe

>Meaning it acts on the best interests of the tribe

Yes I agree. The government should be restrained in order to allow parallel organizations to compete.

deserve every bit of ire we are getting. Black people have had to prove "they were one of the good ones" and "a credit to their race" for far too long. I don't mind having to do it now.

White people being (in their minds) the arbiters of morality and the barometers for what is socially acceptable is a fucking joke.

Every culture has assholes, crooks, and liars, and humans, in general, can't take criticism for shit, even when you're trying to help them, but I've always thought white people were extra-fragile emotionally. I still didn't see this coming.

I'm glad as fuck I'm in my 40s and don't have any kids.

>deserve every bit of ire we are getting. Black people have
>had to prove "they were one of the good ones" and "a credit to
>their race" for far too long. I don't mind having to do it
>now.

Yes, living white men should be held to task for things that happened before they were living. Seems equitable.

>White people being (in their minds) the arbiters of morality
>and the barometers for what is socially acceptable is a
>fucking joke.

Every individual, is the arbiter of morality in his or her own mind. But yes, white men (especially progressives and their cousin religious conservatives) have used the state in order to impose their version of morality on others. Without a powerful central state, they would be unable to accomplish this.

>Every culture has assholes, crooks, and liars, and humans, in
>general, can't take criticism for shit, even when you're
>trying to help them, but I've always thought white people were
>extra-fragile emotionally. I still didn't see this coming.

What didn't you see? The opposition towards the white man tribe, or their reaction to the opposition?

>I'm glad as fuck I'm in my 40s and don't have any kids.

Why?

Who am I? Not a century old cliche. I can tell you that.

>>deserve every bit of ire we are getting. Black people have
>>had to prove "they were one of the good ones" and "a credit
>to
>>their race" for far too long. I don't mind having to do it
>>now.
>
>Yes, living white men should be held to task for things that
>happened before they were living. Seems equitable.

Those two phenomena specified happened (and happen) while all of us here were (and are) living. He's not talking about slavery. He's talking about a more nuanced racism that forces black people to navigate cultural obstacles in the pursuit of success and/or acceptance. I think he's suggesting white people now have to do something similar in order to be successful/accepted in black communities/environments AND ALSO those environments that have become more integrated. Whining about it makes one look especially fragile.


>>White people being (in their minds) the arbiters of morality
>>and the barometers for what is socially acceptable is a
>>fucking joke.
>
>Every individual, is the arbiter of morality in his or her own
>mind. But yes, white men (especially progressives and their
>cousin religious conservatives) have used the state in order
>to impose their version of morality on others. Without a
>powerful central state, they would be unable to accomplish
>this.

Uhh...though I agree there's idealogical similarities between modern progressives and the far-right.....I can't think of any modern progressive agenda that has used the 'powerful central state' as a tool to impose their morality. (at least not in the US) I agree they'd do it if they had the opportunity lol. But can you give me ONE example of a current 'imposed morality' that is the product of federal progressive power? Do you think Clinton or Obama were progressives? If so, I'd strongly disagree.


>>Every culture has assholes, crooks, and liars, and humans,
>in
>>general, can't take criticism for shit, even when you're
>>trying to help them, but I've always thought white people
>were
>>extra-fragile emotionally. I still didn't see this coming.
>
>What didn't you see? The opposition towards the white man
>tribe, or their reaction to the opposition?

I might agree with you here. IMO, the alt-right is a natural and predictable response to the increasingly extreme leftist idealogy. I think the alt-right is using the same principles, inversed, that we're seeing on the far left. Specifically, identity politics. Group identity trumping individual identity and an increase in social tribalism.

>I'm glad as fuck I'm in my 40s and don't have any kids.

I guess our parent's generation worried about the Cuban missile crisis and other cold war stuff. I don't worry about a military attack as much as our society folding in on itself. I guess I could sum it up as the erosion of consensus and the threat that presents to social stability. Crystallized by Trump's rise and that event probably changed my entire worldview.

Conservatives have made countless memes of that women crying 'NOOOOOOOOO' when Trump won the election. Some of them were even funny. But in all honesty....I relate to her. I was a raving lunatic for around 8 months cause I could foresee him winning before everyone else. I think I was in a sort of protective bubble made of American patriotism even though I'm not American. The wisdom of the founding fathers. The constitution. The checks and balances. As David Frum has said....'It's all bullshit'. There's nothing protecting America from an authoritarian madman and we're seeing the proof. The US constitution is a poetic expression of a civil society philosophy...but it doesn't actually DO anything if Mussolini gets elected and establishes a populist cultural platform while attaining formal powers of political leadership. He'll use the political power and populism to dismantle the checks and balances.

I'm pretty sure I was the FIRST on this board to take Trump seriously and I faced alot of dismissal. I point that out in case someone reading this is thinking I was brainwashed by American propaganda. I think most of us are in denial that we held the assumption that the American elective process protects itself INTRINSICALLY from a Trump presidency. That the philosophy of America...the texts and legislation THEMSELVES protect the civility of society. Trump may go out quietly without having significant impact on social stability. I think his damage to American ideals will have consequences we don't even connect to in the future.

I'll put it like this. Two years ago today....before Trump was taken seriously....I wouldn't have related to what you said but I do now. I used to feel certain my kids would have a better life than me. Now there's parts of me that think they were born just in time to see the steep descent of our civilization.

So when you say 'glad not to have kids'....what are you talking about? lol Did you feel the same way 2 years ago?

genocide, exploitation, capitalism, greed etc.

With every generation, these institutions lose their power because they were built with the idea that one group (white guys) of people should be in charge. That idea is obsolete already but many people have benefitted and, as a result, are deeply entrenched in maintaining the conditions that allow them to thrive.

Just like every other color in America.

But other than that it's pretty easy.

Makes sense in a snake eating it's own tail kind of way I guess

We've had the entire world under our own cultural "attack" for the last few centuries, all that's happening is that many more white people have started to receive culture from other ethnicities over the 20th and 21st centuries and it's finally hit the point where actual racists and nationalists are getting itchy and they've got the perfect economy and political playing field to exploit - rural disenfranchisement has left swathes of white people wondering where their 'good old lives' went... rather than seeing that they are suffering from the same flow of income to the upper echelons of society, they think it must be a result of the parents of the Black family down the street getting a proper contract of employment.

Just like with Brexit and Trump getting elected, the real racists and nationalists are incredibly adept at controlling the conversation so that regular, non-racist white folk are duped into thinking there is a War on Christmas, that the Muslim 1% of the nation is about to force Sharia law on the rest of us or that #blacklivesmatter think #whitelivesdontmatter

It's alllllll bullshit.

In your own communities

j/k

don't want you getting killed

I like this post. But I wonder if you're over-simplifying Trump's victory. (I can't speak informed enough on Brexit specifically)

It just doesn't make sense that he won because of 'disenfranchised rural' whites who are racist. Racist rural whites voted for McCain and Romney too but they didn't win. Unless you are suggesting people BECAME racist during Obama's 8 years?

I agree with you on the reactionary nature of rural white racism but I'm shaky on the connection you are making between it and Trump's election. The economy was less stable when Obama was elected the first time (shortly after the housing market crash). Why didn't rural whites getting kicked out of their homes en masse vote in Mccain?

I guess what I'm trying to say....white people who think they're 'under attack' never voted for Obama yet somehow he won. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that explains how this same group of people voted in Trump.

As far as I know Trump's win was basically handed to him by democrats pushing a candidate that couldn't get the democratic voter base to the actual voting booths.

Of course it could still be that the republican voter base changed, but that wasn't necessary for Trump's win.

>It just doesn't make sense that he won because of
>'disenfranchised rural' whites who are racist. Racist rural
>whites voted for McCain and Romney too but they didn't win.
>Unless you are suggesting people BECAME racist during Obama's
>8 years?

Sorry, this turned into a horribly long post.

You subtly misinterpreted my post, I think. I'd say the vast majority of voters aren't basing their voting intention based on racism, but they can be swayed by arguments that have racism at their heart if the narrative has been twisted effectively... in today's climate, Trump's election, the Brexit vote and arguably the same during Obama and Hollande's elections and even Nick Clegg's impact in the 2010 British election there has been a strong pull for something that represents "CHANGE". They know something's gone wrong with western economics and clearly we need to be trying something new. Obama used that energy and kept it positive with a "Hopey Changey" message which caught the country's imagination when compared with McCains offer of a "Steady Hand". They voted for the Change, not specifically for "The Black man"... some had to hold their nose, I'm sure, but a lot thought that voting for such a "landmark" President *must* mean Change would follow.

But Obama was blocked from turning a lot of the accrued Hope into much of the planned Change by an extremely loud and energetic minority that use the mainstream and social media to skew and muddy the political conversation so that working class people eternally fight among themselves, never reaching the solidarity needed to force the genuine, lasting change that would raise up ALL people.

Something like the Obamacare discussion is a perfect example. Obamacare is a good thing for all poor people. I don't think you'd find many economists focused on the working classes that don't think universal healthcare is a pre-requisite for social mobility, but through some very astute sleights of hand, the conversation was shifted from "How many Americans can get treated when something awful happens to them?" to "Hitler was in favor of universal healthcare!", "In Britain elitist panels decide when you die!" and "Won't somebody please think of the EMPLOYERS!" - the conversation gets muddied with misinformation to the point it makes little sense anymore, but the upshot is that Obama can be painted to look ineffective, incompetent or worse, a liar - "he said 'Yes We Can!' We believed him! He hasn't got the job done!" Then someone like Trump comes along who also offers "CHANGE!" in big red letters, but looks like he might be just the right kind of asshole to make his version stick. So the voters go nasty instead of nice, but for largely the same reasons - shit hasn't been working, something has to change. This time the choice was between Trump's message of "Change" and Hilary's "Safe Hands". The electorate made a not dissimilar decision to the last two times, they chose Change... only this time the person offering it was an asshole. They don't care about assholes, they just want Change by any means. They don't even know what Change. Just CHANGE SOMETHING.

By keeping us focused on mountainous molehills like a local school choosing to stage a multi-faith "nativity" over the holidays, the 1 militant #blacklivesmatter supporter instead of the thousands of peaceful ones or the "rapists and drug dealers Mexico send us" they keep our instant answers for "Why does life seem shitter for me than it did for my parents?" focused on other people who are also being failed by society at large... keeping us focused on subtly changing the proportions of too-few tax dollars going to various working class populations rather than coming together to wrest a few more % points from the very top to pay for everything *all* of us need... it's old-fashioned divide and conquer for the information overload era.

I've always believed solidarity is the only way to effect change and history largely proves that to be true. When enough people get together, when it crosses population boundaries and when we stand up for *each other* rather than just ourselves. When societal opinion of a policy hits a quorum point, it changes. The powers that be know that and they'll use every tool at their disposal to delay our solidarity by another few years so they can keep bolstering their own lifestyles... they really don't care whether that leaves the working classes fighting a race war on the floor over the scraps falling from the top table... they'd much prefer that to all of us joining hands and rushing the fucking table.

The fact is, ALL poor people need raising up at the moment - just like they always have. The existence of any family that lacks money, happiness and aspiration is society's failing.

There are unique problems to minority communities and still unacceptable layers of institutional racism, so we absolutely cannot lose focus of the need for minority-specific funding and projects and to check the institutional privilege of white people, but we have to be careful of how funding drives to exclusive populations are presented to other poor people... poor white people also need to feel that society is looking out for them and that they're not being forsaken in the name of another perceived group's "progress"... that if you're a white kid born on a trailer park in Buttfuck, Alabama your life doesn't have to be dominated by poverty, abuse and addiction. Money for programs to raise poor people should never be visibly coming out of the pockets/opportunity pools of other poor people because that will only lead to bitterness and infighting between people who should be engaged in common struggle... it's really not that hard to turn an already bitter person into a racist. So we should be more careful to present funding and programs aimed at the working classes as coming from the top of society, whatever the destination otherwise that desire for "Change" in our own existences becomes a desire to trample people who *should* be our peers... there should be no feeling of "opportunity cost" when enacting laws to raise up poor people.

https://i.imgflip.com/1t6b35.jpg

Since 1976

I don't agree with this at all. Traditional liberals are under attack. This carries some racial implications because of rising popularity of critical race theory in media and social discourse on the one hand....and Trump's rise using racist rhetoric on the other. But black traditional liberals are also under attack (ie being accused of being white supremacists/neo-nazis by the extreme left and simply still being black in regards to Trump's base)

Like I've said several times before. The current cultural war is not left vs right (or black vs white). It's the extremes on both sides vs centrists. Many of those that claim there's a 'war on whites' are just the other side of the extremist spectrum (Trump's side). There are so many similarities between Trump's base and the emerging progressives. They're both authoritarian, anti-science, anti-democratic and anti-intellectual. We are witnessing the horseshoe effect that we all learned in school but have never faced like we are now. This is creating an alliance between traditional liberals and traditional conservatives. Join us and be on the right side of history.

I encourage everyone to read/watch the contributions of John Mcwhorter who claims that this horse-shoeing is the product of social media:

"I think the spark for the current situation is perhaps more mundane than we'd like to think. I don't think that for some reason everybody went crazy. I don't think it's because of the president we happen to have in office. I think it's social media. Social media, especially when you have it in your pocket in the form of the iPhone, allows bubbles of consensus to come together such that you can whip people up in a way that was not possible a generation before, or even ten years before.

It's not only about words but about pictures. And that is more viscerally stirring than pamphlets or that thing called the physical newspaper in the past. And so I think it's inevitable that with the rise of social media you would have this assault on free speech on campus, in the same way that I don't think there would have been a Tea Party if it weren't for Twitter and Facebook. I don't think that it was Obama as the key factor. I think it was the fact that that kind of sentiment could be whipped up to such an extent by these toys that, it's easy to forget what it was like when they didn't exist.

It's what scares me, because social media is not going away."

Intro to Mcwhorter from the Atlantic. Good starting point. Good articles and good podcast(s) too:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/a-columbia-professors-critique-of-campus-politics/532335/

you were accused of being 'alt-right' for posting about Jordan Peterson.

Have you checked out Mcwhorter? I only discovered him around three weeks ago. I've been kinda shocked how in-line I am with him. I'll read anything including stuff I disagree with....but I've yet to find an opinion or agenda from McWhorter that I disagree with. Even purely academic issues like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which I remember from my Wittgenstein days. He's a linguistics professor first and foremost.

He has a solo podcast and also one with Glenn Loury. Both are excellent. Rational voices during crazy times. Mcwhorter's analysis of race and IQ are profound.

The more advanced a world of color becomes... when and where White people want to maintain their identity...they'll claim to be under attack....

the claim to be under attack is a pre-emptive defense against genocidal acts upon people of color.... The trump/alt-right era represents a mainstreaming of that message...and obviously it takes place post-Obama...

White Supremacy is what is under attack...and should always be under attack... That should be the norm

Interested to know what you mean by 'a world of color'. Is this a futuristic post-racial world where we all look the same in regards to skin color? If so...I don't think resistance will be exclusive to white people.

I agree that white supremacy should be attacked intellectually and by force. But 'white supremacy' is currently being very loosely (at times, comically) defined. So saying that white supremacy should be attacked doesn't have very much practical function when everyone defines it differently.