French government denounces American Woke Left

[Fahran]

Yeah, so you're a proponent of identity politic, and the rhetoric about how we need unity and all that is meant to mask that your fundamental concern is with securing the place of your in-group, and not with a fundamental principle of equality. Your in-group is men and the out-group is women, and you have drawn a friend-enemy distinction between the two.

I can't say I really disagree with this assessment.

[Fahran]

Wait, that's my call!

Do I have to do something especially dastardly to be an "enemy"? Also I'm not so sure about the "active" part. I do a good amount of cardio but I think I love my gaming chair too much to be considered an 'active enemy'.

*walks off to scheme monarchist schemes*

Political enmity is not the same as personal enmity.

[Ostroeuropa]

I have never said we need unity.
My advocacy for mens issues is derived from my fundamental principle of equality and my evaluation that my efforts are best spent on maximizing the advancement of mens interests at this time. That may change in future.

And given that this is the case, it is fair to view those who wish to replace a positive national mythology and narrative that espouses the values of the nation and so on, with a negative, critical, and destructive one that sows division among its members.

I see the issue here. I am discussing nationalist unity. That is not the same thing as political unity.

I view the nation as a stabilizing force because it is a pre-political allegiance, and the lack of positive and unifying national mythology causes societal dysfunction. Without it we are not all "Americans" or "British" with different views on how to run society. We are enemy tribes.

[Punished UMN]

To paraphrase Stalin: "How many divisions have the Woke got?"

A scrumptious non-answer.

I've seen you guys make a big ado about woke people but I rarely recall you guys actively denouncing, even if not out of your way, the authoritarian or violent actions of right wingers.

That doesn't mean as much as you think it does. I do not believe in "no enemies to the right"; but as it happens, these enemies in the US political sphere are irrelevant and discredited, and I don't see it as worthwhile to virtue signal against a few dozen fascist LARPers just to appease some authlefts on the Internet.

In an international context, I have mentioned displeasure with authoritarian right-wing governments, even as they undertake actions that may be considered positive (such as Poland going against Big Tech).

Yeah, so you're a proponent of identity politic, and the rhetoric about how we need unity and all that is meant to mask that your fundamental concern is with securing the place of your in-group, and not with a fundamental principle of equality. Your in-group is men and the out-group is women, and you have drawn a friend-enemy distinction between the two.

That's a pretty false assessment of Ostro's actual positions. He could serve to express them better, but I've picked up enough from him to know this isn't true.

You say the fascists are fringe but that the "woke" cannot be underestimated. When have the "woke" seized the national capitol, when have the "woke" attempted to take the Vice President hostage to barter for the nullification of the election? When have the "woke" plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan? When have they gone on mass shooting sprees that leave dozens dead?

The "woke" don't have divisions, the fascists may not have divisions either, but they certainly have regiments.

[United Chinese Communes]

This a fairly obvious ploy by Macron to try and outflank Le Pen and the National Rally prior to the presidential election next year. He has grown increasingly unpopular during his term, as evidenced by mass protests against his neoliberal policies, and (likely correctly) sees the National Rally as the primary threat to his chances of reelection. As such this and his recent anti-islamic stance are nothing more than an attempt to court right-wing voters by appealing to their culture-war narratives. Personally, I doubt he will be overly successful.

[Punished UMN]

I see the issue here. I am discussing nationalist unity. That is not the same thing as political unity.

I view the nation as a stabilizing force because it is a pre-political allegiance, and the lack of positive and unifying national mythology causes societal dysfunction. Without it we are not all "Americans" or "British" with different views on how to run society. We are enemy tribes.

Which is the problem, you want to create a "positive and unifying national mythology" (totally not fascist rhetoric guys!) in order to prevent criticism of political hierarchy. Creating a mythology won't get rid of the very real "tribal" divisions in society, no matter how hard you mythologize it, for the same reason that aggressively spraying Febreze won't get rid of the smell of the rodent decaying in a wall.

[Fahran]

This a fairly obvious ploy by Macron to try and outflank Le Pen and the National Rally prior to the presidential election next year. He has grown increasingly unpopular during his term, as evidenced by mass protests against his neoliberal policies, and (likely correctly) sees the National Rally as the primary threat to his chances of reelection. As such this and his recent anti-islamic stance are nothing more than an attempt to court right-wing voters by appealing to their culture-war narratives. Personally, I doubt he will be overly successful.

And why does he view this as necessary to court voters?

[Nilokeras]

1. The trend that when the left takes an institution, these things emerge? By all means. Find an exception. Don't point to an institution in control of the right, because that isn't the discussion.

'It's a trend that when the left takes over they turn universities into authoritarian hellholes that make me look at posters of the sexy moustache man all day. Don't point out that most of them are actually in control of the right, because that isn't the discussion'

2. How is it nonsensical?

Because it's you recycling rightist rhetoric and barfing it up onto the thread as though it proves something about the left.

3. Do you think philosophytube and contrapoints and so on are fascists too? They concur with this assessment of fascists.

Again Ostro, this is not the FDT where you have 1000 pages of your sandbox of discourse to draw on. I don't know who these people are.

4. I do not believe demographic conflict is the unavoidable state of nature. I don't like militarism. I like democracy. I don't like government intervention in peoples private lives. But because I think national mythology is important, I'm fascist.

*rolls eyes*.

If the national integralist spiritualism fits

[Labbos]

This is classic blaming the victim thinking. It is blaming people who try and find a way to combat oppression against themselves. Whether you agree with it or not. Claiming that a system created to fight racism is racist is a classic attack style used by racists. This is an extreme form of liberal racism often coming out of southern politics. I am calling it liberal racism, because that is what it is. It is different than right wing racism. It is specifically used to limit social change and political action.
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/fea ... ic-racism/

The Nazis believed they were fighting Jewish oppression against their race. By your logic, calling the Nazis racist is victim blaming and a racist act in itself. It's a very silly argument. We should judge whether something is racist by whether it meets the definition.

[United Chinese Communes]

I see the issue here. I am discussing nationalist unity. That is not the same thing as political unity.

I view the nation as a stabilizing force because it is a pre-political allegiance, and the lack of positive and unifying national mythology causes societal dysfunction. Without it we are not all "Americans" or "British" with different views on how to run society. We are enemy tribes.

And yet the nation is simply a larger tribe at odds with other large tribes. How does this state of affairs resolve the situation? And why should the nation, as a fictitious, mythological entity, be the focus of our allegiance?

[Ostroeuropa]

I see the issue here. I am discussing nationalist unity. That is not the same thing as political unity.

I view the nation as a stabilizing force because it is a pre-political allegiance, and the lack of positive and unifying national mythology causes societal dysfunction. Without it we are not all "Americans" or "British" with different views on how to run society. We are enemy tribes.

Which is the problem, you want to create a "positive and unifying national mythology" (totally not fascist rhetoric guys!) in order to prevent criticism of political hierarchy. Creating a mythology won't get rid of the very real "tribal" divisions in society, no matter how hard you mythologize it, for the same reason that aggressively spraying Febreze won't get rid of the smell of the rodent decaying in a wall.

I've struck the portions that are wrong.

The tribal divisions would still exist, but through a national mythos tying our tribal identities to eachother a new in group can be constructed that supercedes tribal divisions and causes inequalities between tribes to be viewed as a problem to be fixed.

[United Chinese Communes]

This a fairly obvious ploy by Macron to try and outflank Le Pen and the National Rally prior to the presidential election next year. He has grown increasingly unpopular during his term, as evidenced by mass protests against his neoliberal policies, and (likely correctly) sees the National Rally as the primary threat to his chances of reelection. As such this and his recent anti-islamic stance are nothing more than an attempt to court right-wing voters by appealing to their culture-war narratives. Personally, I doubt he will be overly successful.

And why does he view this as necessary to court voters?

Because Le Pen has overtaken him in the opinion polls, so he seeks to take away her votes.

[SD_Film Artists]

Wait, that's my call!

Do I have to do something especially dastardly to be an "enemy"? Also I'm not so sure about the "active" part. I do a good amount of cardio but I think I love my gaming chair too much to be considered an 'active enemy'.

*walks off to scheme monarchist schemes*

Political enmity is not the same as personal enmity.

[Punished UMN]

Which is the problem, you want to create a "positive and unifying national mythology" (totally not fascist rhetoric guys!) in order to prevent criticism of political hierarchy. Creating a mythology won't get rid of the very real "tribal" divisions in society, no matter how hard you mythologize it, for the same reason that aggressively spraying Febreze won't get rid of the smell of the rodent decaying in a wall.

I've struck the portions that are wrong.

The tribal divisions would still exist, but through a national mythos tying our tribal identities to eachother a new in group can be constructed that supercedes tribal divisions and causes inequalities between tribes to be viewed as a problem to be fixed.

It's not incorrect, it is fascist rhetoric, you could find some of the same words, almost verbatim in the writing of Gentile or Mussolini. Creating a "positive and unifying national mythology" has been, explicitly, the political project of every fascist regime that ever existed.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. The trend that when the left takes an institution, these things emerge? By all means. Find an exception. Don't point to an institution in control of the right, because that isn't the discussion.

'It's a trend that when the left takes over they turn universities into authoritarian hellholes that make me look at posters of the sexy moustache man all day. Don't point out that most of them are actually in control of the right, because that isn't the discussion'

2. How is it nonsensical?

Because it's you recycling rightist rhetoric and barfing it up onto the thread as though it proves something about the left.

3. Do you think philosophytube and contrapoints and so on are fascists too? They concur with this assessment of fascists.

Again Ostro, this is not the FDT where you have 1000 pages of your sandbox of discourse to draw on. I don't know who these people are.

4. I do not believe demographic conflict is the unavoidable state of nature. I don't like militarism. I like democracy. I don't like government intervention in peoples private lives. But because I think national mythology is important, I'm fascist.

*rolls eyes*.

If the national integralist spiritualism fits

1. Where they have control, the negatives we have discussed occur. This is why people don't want them to have more control.

2. People have explained to you how there are anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western trends in the left. It is not rightist rhetoric to be anti-bigotry.

3. They've very prominent popularizers of left wing ideas and philosophy and some of the most active people in the culture war against the far-right.

4. "All nationalism is fascism.".

I've struck the portions that are wrong.

The tribal divisions would still exist, but through a national mythos tying our tribal identities to eachother a new in group can be constructed that supercedes tribal divisions and causes inequalities between tribes to be viewed as a problem to be fixed.

It's not incorrect, it is fascist rhetoric, you could find some of the same words, almost verbatim in the writing of Gentile or Mussolini. Creating a "positive and unifying national mythology" has been, explicitly, the political project of every fascist regime that ever existed.

See 4.

[Punished UMN]

'It's a trend that when the left takes over they turn universities into authoritarian hellholes that make me look at posters of the sexy moustache man all day. Don't point out that most of them are actually in control of the right, because that isn't the discussion'



Because it's you recycling rightist rhetoric and barfing it up onto the thread as though it proves something about the left.



Again Ostro, this is not the FDT where you have 1000 pages of your sandbox of discourse to draw on. I don't know who these people are.



If the national integralist spiritualism fits

1. Where they have control, the negatives we have discussed occur. This is why people don't want them to have more control.

2. People have explained to you how there are anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western trends in the left. It is not rightist rhetoric to be anti-bigotry.

3. They've very prominent popularizers of left wing ideas and philosophy and some of the most active people in the culture war against the far-right.

4. "All nationalism is fascism.".

It's not incorrect, it is fascist rhetoric, you could find some of the same words, almost verbatim in the writing of Gentile or Mussolini. Creating a "positive and unifying national mythology" has been, explicitly, the political project of every fascist regime that ever existed.

See 4.

It's not all nationalism that uses that rhetoric. It's palingenetic ultranationalism.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Which is the problem, you want to create a "positive and unifying national mythology" (totally not fascist rhetoric guys!) in order to prevent criticism of political hierarchy. Creating a mythology won't get rid of the very real "tribal" divisions in society, no matter how hard you mythologize it, for the same reason that aggressively spraying Febreze won't get rid of the smell of the rodent decaying in a wall.

I've struck the portions that are wrong.

The tribal divisions would still exist, but through a national mythos tying our tribal identities to eachother a new in group can be constructed that supercedes tribal divisions and causes inequalities between tribes to be viewed as a problem to be fixed.

How do you propose to solve the white-black problem in US then. One thing really funny is that you might propose a continental Eurasian solution similar to that Italian dude which all sides in US can not stomach. What’s even funnier is that if such a solution works it will actually be very good to Americans in general.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not all nationalism that uses that rhetoric. It's palingenetic ultranationalism.

Palingenitic yes, ultranationalism no.

Nationalist revivals do not make fascism.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][8][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism)

I've underlined the relevant parts and bolded the very relevant ones.

I'd put it to you that if a national mythos being proposed doesn't involve the necessity of violent expansion or retribution, it cannot take on the qualities of fascism because it lacks the ultranationalist element. The national mythos I would seek to supplant the highly anti-white and negative one on offer from the left is markedly more docile and collaborative.

[Punished UMN]

It's not all nationalism that uses that rhetoric. It's palingenetic ultranationalism.

Palingenitic yes, ultranationalism no.

Nationalist revivals do not make fascism.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][8][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism)

I've underlined the relevant parts and bolded the very relevant ones.

Belief in a shared singular history is different than deliberately deluding oneself into believing we all have a shared interest. Nationalism is compatible with anti-fascism, certainly, but palingenesis necessarily excludes those who are not represented by it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Palingenitic yes, ultranationalism no.

Nationalist revivals do not make fascism.



I've underlined the relevant parts and bolded the very relevant ones.

Belief in a shared singular history is different than deliberately deluding oneself into believing we all have a shared interest. Nationalism is compatible with anti-fascism, certainly, but palingenesis necessarily excludes those who are not represented by it.

Obviously those not represented are excluded.
Rebirth and revival does not exclude anybody in itself. It depends on what the new mythos is and its important that it be inclusive, else it will merely replicate the problems with the one the woke left is putting out there and which have caused opposition from such a large swathe of the public such as those in france who feel their nation is being taken from them not because "We're including minorities now", but because the woke narrative of national history *excludes white people and demonizes them*.

[Proctopeo]

A scrumptious non-answer.


That doesn't mean as much as you think it does. I do not believe in "no enemies to the right"; but as it happens, these enemies in the US political sphere are irrelevant and discredited, and I don't see it as worthwhile to virtue signal against a few dozen fascist LARPers just to appease some authlefts on the Internet.

In an international context, I have mentioned displeasure with authoritarian right-wing governments, even as they undertake actions that may be considered positive (such as Poland going against Big Tech).


That's a pretty false assessment of Ostro's actual positions. He could serve to express them better, but I've picked up enough from him to know this isn't true.

You say the fascists are fringe but that the "woke" cannot be underestimated. When have the "woke" seized the national capitol, when have the "woke" attempted to take the Vice President hostage to barter for the nullification of the election? When have the "woke" plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan? When have they gone on mass shooting sprees that leave dozens dead?

The "woke" don't have divisions, the fascists may not have divisions either, but they certainly have regiments.

Ignoring the fact that those weren't actually fascists, the issue with your argument here is that you're suggesting only overt actions taken directly against the governing apparatus are significant or "count", which is blatantly nonsensical. The "woke" direct their attacks at the centers of information - news, social media, and the education system, which, while it has less shock factor, is likely more concerning.

[Punished UMN]

Belief in a shared singular history is different than deliberately deluding oneself into believing we all have a shared interest. Nationalism is compatible with anti-fascism, certainly, but palingenesis necessarily excludes those who are not represented by it.

Obviously those not represented are excluded.
Rebirth and revival does not exclude anybody in itself. It depends on what the new mythos is and its important that it be inclusive, else it will merely replicate the problems with the one the woke left is putting out there.

So what mythos do you create that would include those who were historically oppressed by the nation? The only way you can do this is to eliminate history and create a national cult.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Belief in a shared singular history is different than deliberately deluding oneself into believing we all have a shared interest. Nationalism is compatible with anti-fascism, certainly, but palingenesis necessarily excludes those who are not represented by it.

Obviously those not represented are excluded.
Rebirth and revival does not exclude anybody in itself. It depends on what the new mythos is and its important that it be inclusive, else it will merely replicate the problems with the one the woke left is putting out there.

What do you propose to do to intellectuals who naturally hate all myths? Like all intellectuals need to be killed or at least incarcerated in research institutions and tech companies?

[Punished UMN]

You say the fascists are fringe but that the "woke" cannot be underestimated. When have the "woke" seized the national capitol, when have the "woke" attempted to take the Vice President hostage to barter for the nullification of the election? When have the "woke" plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan? When have they gone on mass shooting sprees that leave dozens dead?

The "woke" don't have divisions, the fascists may not have divisions either, but they certainly have regiments.

Ignoring the fact that those weren't actually fascists, the issue with your argument here is that you're suggesting only overt actions taken directly against the governing apparatus are significant or "count", which is blatantly nonsensical. The "woke" direct their attacks at the centers of information - news, social media, and the education system, which, while it has less shock factor, is likely more concerning.

The right has been attacking the media, education system, and social media for decades, have you been under a rock since 1945?

[Ostroeuropa]

Obviously those not represented are excluded.
Rebirth and revival does not exclude anybody in itself. It depends on what the new mythos is and its important that it be inclusive, else it will merely replicate the problems with the one the woke left is putting out there.

So what mythos do you create that would include those who were historically oppressed by the nation? The only way you can do this is to eliminate history and create a national cult.

I refer you to my discussion with Lirenia.

As for "Historical truth", that's a very curious view of history. It is a series of stories we tell ourselves. Necessarily most of it is excluded and filled with narrative mythology. What we decide is important, which events, which facts, and the order in which we place them, is not truth. It is narrative and storytelling.

Only a single fact in isolation from others and without value judgement can such a thing as "Historical truth" exist. Two facts produces a kuleshov effect that is storytelling. More increases this effect. Value judgement produces narrative.

You confuse your view of history with fact. The truth is, we both want mythology. I'm just self-aware.