White Supremacy discussion thread

[The Reformed American Republic]

Because you're a monarchist and a Christian? Doesn't make you right wing.

... yes. Being a monarchist very much does make someone right-wing.

No it doesn't. There have been center left to left-wing monarchists. Wanting more social equality while liking the idea of a king.

[Salus Maior]

That's what Colonialism is.

Well than I gues my views are “mutually beneficial” colonialism.

Which is a fantasy and isn't historically evident.

[Immortan Khan]

It's still a relevant concept in the ME. Among the reasons a family friend prefers living in Canada instead of Saudi Arabia is that, for him, he faces less prejudice for being black in Canada than in Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't say the middle east is a bastion of racial tolerance but in the middle east they're pretty prejudiced toward anyone. The Lebanese don't want Palestinians in their country. The Saudis shit all over foreign guestworkers. The Egyptians wish the Libyan would leave. Etc etc.

Okay it's great you say that because all of those groups are Arabs and yet they still shit on each other. Do you see how this is similar to white ethnic groups that were still shit on in America's past?

[The Reformed American Republic]

... yes. Being a monarchist very much does make someone right-wing.

I'm also not opposed to socioeconomic hierarchies (shit I'm rich myself) and I'm pretty elitist in a number of ways.

So I'm supposed to give you respect because you're a neoliberal? Yea, no.

[Suriyanakhon]

... yes. Being a monarchist very much does make someone right-wing.

I'm also not opposed to socioeconomic hierarchies (shit I'm rich myself) and I'm pretty elitist in a number of ways.

It's kind of weird how acknowledging the history of racism makes someone automatically labeled a leftist, even when they're right-wing.

[Immortan Khan]

... yes. Being a monarchist very much does make someone right-wing.

No it doesn't. There have been center left to left-wing monarchists. Wanting more social equality while liking the idea of a king.

I like how me not being right-wing is boiled down to simply not being racist.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

"Mutually Beneficial Colonialism, and other lies you can tell yourself"

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

[Immortan Khan]

I'm also not opposed to socioeconomic hierarchies (shit I'm rich myself) and I'm pretty elitist in a number of ways.

So I'm supposed to give you respect because you're a neoliberal? Yea, no.

I'm not a neoliberal either.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I wouldn't say the middle east is a bastion of racial tolerance but in the middle east they're pretty prejudiced toward anyone. The Lebanese don't want Palestinians in their country. The Saudis shit all over foreign guestworkers. The Egyptians wish the Libyan would leave. Etc etc.

Okay it's great you say that because all of those groups are Arabs and yet they still shit on each other. Do you see how this is similar to white ethnic groups that were still shit on in America's past?

Maybe for the french. But ever since race became a major concept in America, discrimination has been heavily racialized. If anyone saw the Italians as white in 1900, they sure didn't see them as purely white, and in the time of the one drop rule, not pure white=not white.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No it doesn't. There have been center left to left-wing monarchists. Wanting more social equality while liking the idea of a king.

I like how me not being right-wing is boiled down to simply not being racist.

The self-flattery here is intense.

[Immortan Khan]

I'm also not opposed to socioeconomic hierarchies (shit I'm rich myself) and I'm pretty elitist in a number of ways.

It's kind of weird how acknowledging the history of racism makes someone automatically labeled a leftist, even when they're right-wing.

I know. Lets forget that if it were up to me at least 10%-20% of seats in the Upper House would be reserved for religious clergy.

[Salus Maior]

"Mutually Beneficial Colonialism, and other lies you can tell yourself"

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

Also, concentration camps.

The Soviet relationships with the other non-Russian states was not at all "mutually beneficial".

[Immortan Khan]

"Mutually Beneficial Colonialism, and other lies you can tell yourself"

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

Civilization already existed in Central Asia.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

Also, concentration camps.

[message removed because rules, if I continue discussion on this theme this will surely result in DEAT for me, sorry]

The Soviet relationships with the other non-Russian states was not at all "mutually beneficial".

Eh, several violation here and there, several deportations (I am partially Ingush myself and they were deported), but that’s not disproving my point that SOME of these relationships were mutually beneficial.

[Hanunah]

Settlers is a trash ass book that downplays everything poor white Americans have had to fight through in a sick game of victim Olympics. While some of the things written in it are true, it's still full of alot of shit.

It's Maoist third worldism. First-worlders are not proletariat, even if poor, support for the Khmer regime are other forms of crap they believe in. They're pretty hateful.

Not a third worldist. Im just an MLM. I disagree with Sakai's conclusion that racial struggle supersedes class struggle. I dont believe that there isn't a white proletariat. When I said to read settlers I meant specifically the historical sections, not Sakai's racialism.

I consider myself a supporter of the Revolutionary Intercommunal Black Panther Party (no, not the Revolutionary Black Panther Party, they're completely different; communists really need more creative names). I believe that the revolution can only be waged by a multiracial rainbow coalition, under the leadership of the colonized proletariat but stressing the unity of the entire proletariat.

The reason recognizing that settler proletarians exist is important is because they have a dual character (one of colonialism, one of labor), and this dual character makes its way inevitably into all settler-proletarian organizing. The white labor movement has historically been a greater enemy to the black nation than to the bourgeoisie, which makes sense considering the black nation is so much weaker.

[Heloin]

They didn't give them "civilization". They conquered already existing civilizations and turned them into societies entirely based off of the exploitation of native labor and the extraction of resources for the benefit of the colonizer.

Let’s compare Rhodesia, which was essentially the last colonial state in Africa and Angola, a decolonized state. Who did better? Count in the fact that Rhodesia was essentially supported only by South Africa and that Angola was supported by literally half of communist world.

Angola was in a battleground between South Africa and Cuba until 1989 and still in a civil war until 2002 and Rhodesia was an abject failure except in the minds of foreigners, often white, who want to use my countries past to justify falsehoods about Africa and colonialism that don't have any bearing in reality.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

Civilization already existed in Central Asia.

Technology didn’t. Before the Soviets came the locals didn’t even have had electricity, women didn’t had any rights, and other “cool” stuff.

[The Reformed American Republic]

"Mutually Beneficial Colonialism, and other lies you can tell yourself"

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

This is not a good idea for so many reasons. Not the least of which are ethical concerns.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Let’s compare Rhodesia, which was essentially the last colonial state in Africa and Angola, a decolonized state. Who did better? Count in the fact that Rhodesia was essentially supported only by South Africa and that Angola was supported by literally half of communist world.

Angola was in a battleground between South Africa and Cuba until 1989 and still in a civil war until 2002 and Rhodesia was an abject failure except in the minds of foreigners, often white, who want to use my countries past to justify falsehoods about Africa and colonialism that don't have any bearing in reality.

Eh, at very least living conditions there were better than in most neighboring majority rule black states.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Somewhat like the soviets did in some central Asian states, brought there civilization, technology and other cool stuff while also taking away natural resources- a win-win situation.

This is not a good idea for so many reasons. Not the least of which are ethical concerns.

You’re talking to a person who has zero empathy, especially for himself. Ethical concerns are of a little worry to me most of the time with some exceptions.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The white labor movement has historically been a greater enemy to the black nation than to the bourgeoisie, which makes sense considering the black nation is so much weaker.

Historically minorities have been used as a societal whipping boy by poor whites. This is unfortunately true. We saw recently in 2016 how Trump was able to weaponize the anger and frustration of working to middle class white people and turn them against hispanics, Arab Americans and black people. In the process they didn't even see the flawed democracy in their country being eroded away even more, or see that their jobs were still being automated or outsourced because Mexicans were never stealing their jobs, their greedy higher ups just wanted cheaper labor.

The establishment is willing to tolerate racism as long as it serves as a good distraction. To quote a song which I hold near and dear to me, no one fights the system, they're fighting each other.

[Immortan Khan]

Civilization already existed in Central Asia.

Technology didn’t. Before the Soviets came the locals didn’t even have had electricity, women didn’t had any rights, and other “cool” stuff.

Electricity would have eventually spread during the Russian Empire as Russia underwent industrialization which is why it was underdeveloped, not because it didn't have civilization (which it did have). Women having it worse off doesn't mean there wasn't civilization there either. By this standard, when can we invade Russia to bring it civilization?

[Hanunah]

No, not at all. Black people were a forcibly imported proletariat who labored so that settlers didn't have to. https://readsettlers.org/ has good info on this subject

Settlers is a trash ass book that downplays everything poor white Americans have had to fight through in a sick game of victim Olympics. While some of the things written in it are true, it's still full of alot of shit.

I mean, the argument he makes is that because of the dual settler-proletariat character of the white worker, and the relative weakness of the colonized people compared to the bourgeoisie, that the white worker is much more likely to align themselves with the bourgeoisie against the colonized people than ally with the colonized people against the bourgeoisie. It's revisionist, yes, but the points he brings up are valid and worth listening too, even if you have preconceived disagreement.

He CERTAINLY doesnt argue that white proletarians don't suffer oppression. He only discusses what they tend to do in response to their oppression.


Its interesting how many people just make up their mind on Settlers without reading it, and instead defer to the opinions of other people who have also not read settlers.

[Kowani]

I'm also not opposed to socioeconomic hierarchies (shit I'm rich myself) and I'm pretty elitist in a number of ways.

It's kind of weird how acknowledging the history of racism makes someone automatically labeled a leftist, even when they're right-wing.

not really
i would argue that the cultural values that result from acknowledging racism are pretty left-wing, at least in the american context.
once you acknowledge the racism, the next step is almost always "what can we do about it?"
even if you're not committed to some sort of post-racial future, the ingrained racism strikes heavily at the idea of meritocracy that's been indoctrinated into every american child since birth
it's also, i'd say, incompatible with two prominent American Myths-the American Dream and American Exceptionalism

[Heloin]

Angola was in a battleground between South Africa and Cuba until 1989 and still in a civil war until 2002 and Rhodesia was an abject failure except in the minds of foreigners, often white, who want to use my countries past to justify falsehoods about Africa and colonialism that don't have any bearing in reality.

Eh, at very least living conditions there were better than in most neighboring majority rule black states.

Nope, this is a lie spread by white supremacists. Rhodesia had a high standard of living for a tiny minority that would have included by parents, grandparents, and so on who never made up more than 5% of the population. Of Black Rhodesians maybe 15% at best saw a standard of living that came close to even half that of White Rhodesians.