Abolish the White Race - By Any Means Necessary

[American Dream]

Great- a citation that hinges upon a comparison to Joe Valachi, who helped conceal much more than he revealed about the Deep State. I love it!

I also doubt the author of the article shares your world view much at all, Sounder. What was your point in citing that piece? Also, on what grounds do you equate critique of Nativism and White Supremacy with "hate breeding"?

I like this much more than AD's hate breeding efforts. Courtesy of semper back on page six.

http://107cowgate.com/2015/11/23/why-th ... -the-cold/
By Gary O’Shea

In 1962 Joe Valachi a soldier in the Cosa Nostra was arrested and turned informer. He explained how the organisation was structured, fingered the top men and generally blew the gaff. It was the beginning of the end for the Italian Mafia’s stranglehold on organised crime in America. One man was capable of wreaking such devastation not because he was high-ranking or particularly bright, but because he was an insider. And he broke the code. And he was the first to do so.

David Goodhart is of a different hue, but an insider nonetheless. A liberal academic of impeccable lineage: he founded Prospect magazine, and chaired the think tank Demos. Then he stumbled across an article by Tory Minister David Willetts which argued that mass immigration must eventually undermine the contributory principle of the welfare state. And it got him thinking. Eventually he went public with a 6000 word essay entitled: ‘Too diverse?’ A book, ‘The British Dream: Successes and Failures of post war immigration’, followed. Although widely reviewed, as far as his erstwhile liberal colleagues were concerned, he had breached the code, and in the vernacular ‘ratted them out’. And as with Joe Valachi they hated him for it. He has since been compared to Enoch Powell, accused of being a neo-fascist, and banned from the Hay literary festival. Now, liberals generally support the right causes, just not always for the right reasons. So their sense of dismay is not just because of Goodhart’s apostate views on uncontrolled immigration and its consequences for social democracy, but also, and as importantly, what he might reveal about them and their motivations; mainly their fear of being found out.

[Sounder]

I also doubt the author of the article shares your world view much at all, Sounder.

And that shows what you know.

What was your point in citing that piece?

I tend to respect insiders that are willing to go against the grain within their own chosen communities because they tend to be better informed than typical 'opponents'.

Also, I was looking for a place to post this;
https://www.csu stan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf

I have yet to find a proper place for it, but did enjoy the Gary O'Shea piece so I gave that a shot.

Also, on what grounds do you equate critique of Nativism and White Supremacy with "hate breeding"?

I don't, my problem is less with what you have to say than with how you say it. Which to me sounds like hate breeding.

So, what do you think about Goodhart?

‘Too diverse?’ A book, ‘The British Dream: Successes and Failures of post war immigration’, followed. Although widely reviewed, as far as his erstwhile liberal colleagues were concerned, he had breached the code, and in the vernacular ‘ratted them out’. And as with Joe Valachi they hated him for it. He has since been compared to Enoch Powell, accused of being a neo-fascist, and banned from the Hay literary festival. Now, liberals generally support the right causes, just not always for the right reasons. So their sense of dismay is not just because of Goodhart’s apostate views on uncontrolled immigration and its consequences for social democracy, but also, and as importantly, what he might reveal about them and their motivations; mainly their fear of being found out.

[American Dream]

Hmm, cherrypicking ideas from a bit farther to the left in order to "prove" specious ideas about migrants- and/or other oppressed groups- is a very weak form of argument.

It is extremely well known that neoliberals need not uphold the same freedom of travel for people (especially refugees and ordinary workers) that they demand for goods.

An even weaker argument is that it is the anti-racists/anti-fascists who are the ones breeding hate. That generally just doesn't fly, except in the very most boneheaded locales. Rigorous Intuition should not be considered one of those places.

[Sounder]

Hmm, cherrypicking ideas from a bit farther to the left in order to "prove" specious ideas about migrants- and/or other oppressed groups- is a very weak form of argument.

Learn to read, learn to write AD. I am not 'proving' anything, it is a reflection on how folk with divergent ideas can be quickly blackballed from their in group for exposing inner working and motivations. But you are welcome to present a non-specious counter argument that uncontrolled immigration does not produce undue social consequences. No? Thought not.

It is extremely well known that neoliberals need not uphold the same freedom of travel for people (especially refugees and ordinary workers) that they demand for goods.

And yet they do.

An even weaker argument is that it is the anti-racists/anti-fascists who are the ones breeding hate.

I don't argue that, I merely observe that you are breeding hate. My issue is not with anti-racism, it is with you, who I consider to be a racist with a superiority complex that is doing a lot of projecting.

That generally just doesn't fly, except in the very most boneheaded locales. Rigorous Intuition should not be considered one of those places.

Ah, but it does fly when folk look behind the words at the intentions and tone. You love color revolutions, making you a neo-liberal in my book.

[American Dream]

I really can't see having a productive conversation with you, Sounder.

This is where I stop.

[82_28]

I have never met AD but I have it on high believability that he is A-OK from other members here. He just is who he is just like all of us are who we are. There really is nothing we can do about any of ourselves. American Dream posts here because he can and wants to. I know SLAD has a problem with him but that's between him and her and it's none of my business. But I vicariously like them both. I have been told I get along with and am far too permissive of all people in all of my life but while not necessarily not a good rule of thumb, as they say, for some reason I am "forced" to love each and every thing I come into contact with. Do what you want, do not like, but always love is my motto.

Life is complex as fuck. It doesn't mean to be. It just is. Some people delve into the complexities and wonder why they are there, thus creating more complexitationessness.

Believe me, it ain't no path to riches and fame. All are equal. All and that includes plants and animals.

Also, I am not a vegan.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

All are equal. All and that includes plants and animals.

Don't forget serial killers (serial killers would also include Presidents, natch.)


I appreciate your 'inclusive' mindset, 82_28, but (and I say this with no ill will), you shouldn't feel compelled to play the peacemaker in this forum.

Sometimes, folks gonna get testy with each other; it's inherent within any platform that involves communications/interactions between humans. Sometimes the banter may get cute, funny, happy, sad, playful, etc. At other times, the banter may get angry and/or snippy in tone, and far be it from any other member here to "step in" and curtail such expressions (so long as the expressions remain within the guidelines of this forum, of course).

There's also no rule in place that all here must "like" each other (whatever that may mean within a medium where most have never actually met in the flesh.) Some folks just ain't gonna find that middle-ground with each other, and hey: that's ok.

We're all (presumably) grown-ups here.

Aight? We gots our sheriff 'round these parts already.
(at least 1 -- don't recall offhand how many are currently charged with thankless mod duty).

(a couple edits to 'stylistic' syntax)

[Iamwhomiam]

True enough, Belligerent Savant. I been in both roles in argument here and I've also sought for peace to be made between others engaged in unproductive bitter argument. My being 'helpful' as I thought I was when seeking peace between parties, was not received as being helpful at all.

I appreciate your kindness, 82, as do many here, if not all.

Hell, if only you'd lighten up a bit on soccer, I'd nominate you for RI Sainthood.

AD ~ The Valachi Papers, Joe's bio by Peter Mass & '72 movie staring Charles Bronson.

[Sounder]

I really can't see having a productive conversation with you, Sounder.

That's to bad, because I'm having a very productive conversation with you, from my side of things.

So here is a few things, NBD, no need to respond. You and I treat our definitions differently. For you, a racist is someone that has disparaging attitudes towards and fear of minorities. And it's a good definition that sensible people agree with. However there is another sense where a person is a racist by virtue of being obsessed with race. Second thing; you seem to treat your 'enemies' as being irredeemable, whereas I consider personal flaws and shortcomings to always be able to be discarded under the right circumstances.

The trick is to create right circumstances. That is the one true way to show love.

This is where I stop.

Good luck on that.

[American Dream]

Kendrick Smithyman's rebuke to Trump





Donald Trump's presidential campaign has helped make the term 'white nationalism' fashionable, if not quite respectable. Political commentators of both the left and the right have noted Trump's popularity with white, working class Americans angry at their country's deindustrialised economy and darkening demographics.

Trump has repeatedly retweeted messages and slogans from white supremacists, and in the lengthy and combustible comments threads at sites like Breitbart and Pajamas Media many of his supporters have defined themselves as white nationalists, and decried liberals and leftists as 'traitors' to the white race.

What very few white nationalists seem to sense is the fragility and historical shallowness of the racial category they use to define themselves. The Northumbrian scholar Alistair Bonnett has spent a good part of his career studying the labels 'white' and 'whiteness'. Bonnett has shown that, before the nineteenth century, few Europeans defined themselves in racial terms. If any pan-European identity existed, then it was premised on religion, rather than race. When the Crusaders marched east, they saw themselves as warriors for Christendom, not fighters for a white race.

Even after pseudo-scientific ideas about race became popular in the middle of the nineteenth century, many members of Europe's elites tended to see the continent's working classes and peasantry as non-white. In his essay 'How the British Working Class Became White', Bonnett describes the reaction of newspapers to a working class riot in Southampton in 1866. The rioters were characterised as 'negroes', and contrasted with the white 'gentlemen' whose businesses they attacked. A century ago some of Britain's upper classes still saw the working class of their country as a different and inferior race, closer genetically to the Indians and the Africans than to the Windsors.

Commentators have criticised Trump's tendency to make unjust generalisations about diverse minority groups, like America's black and Muslim communities. But few have noted that Trump is guilty of homogenising and stereotyping America's 'white' population, as well as its minorities. 'White' Americans come from a plethora of cultures, and it is not long since some of these cultures were viewed as both backward and dangerous by the country's Anglo-Saxon establishment. In his marvellous film Jungle Fever Spike Lee reminds his audience of the Italians who were lynched along with blacks in Louisiana. As a brilliant high school student recently proved, Irish as well as blacks and Mexicans were often excluded from jobs in nineteenth century and fin de siecle America.

Because of the diverse origins and affiliations of its European population, the United States was for a long time seen as an inferior, 'mongrel' nation by Anglo-Saxon racists.

Continues at: http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2016 ... trump.html

[kool maudit]

Just to note again that this thread title calls for genocide and all claims otherwise consist of meaningless jargon.

"Abolish the _____ race – by any means necessary" is a statement that would not be tolerated with any other variable besides white and to exploit this inverted taboo, which came about as an overcorrection due to the necessary dismantling of previous belief-structures in the later 20th century, is shameful and base.

As I will note every time this thread is bumped:

This is a bad thread and it reflects badly on both its creator and the board.

[American Dream]

Then again you could read Noel Ignatiev's article. He does not want to destroy himself. He does want to undermine and destroy reified beliefs which are central to the organization of social oppression.

[kool maudit]

I am familiar with critical race theory and the work of Ignatiev, as well as other, similarly inclined people like Tim Wise.

I have considered the idea that whiteness is not in fact any sort of racial descriptor but is rather a word created to describe a system of institutionalised privilege, and the linked idea that abolishing the white race by any means necessary is in fact -- although it sounds like, and retains the precise syntax of, calls for racial genocide -- a sort of call for human liberation with regard to this system.

You know what? It's horseshit. It's all horseshit. It's horseshit created to sneak out of the back door of the statement "abolish the white race by any means necessary". It's horseshit because it allows, and is designed to allow, its speaker to mouth a severe call to violence and instantly retreat to an airy position of dispersed, theoretical justice-seeking.

However imprecise or problematic or biologically ungrounded its origin, the term "white race" is widely understood to refer to Europeans and European-descended peoples. Imagine a Kampala corner bar where one person of, say, Danish descent is drinking amidst a crowd of mainly Ugandans with perhaps some other people from other sub-Saharan African countries. You go from drinker to drinker with a clipboard and ask people which person is the "white"guy.

What do you think happens? Do you get elaborate dissections of insitutional power, or half-annoyed, colloquially brusque replies indicating the man with the pale skin, blue eyes, straight brown hair -- the man who looks most generally like the peoples of Europe?

And you know this! You know it. Ignatiev knows it. Wise knows it. But you have to go through this every time because maybe you're just not informed, maybe you just haven't done your reading, maybe you need a link or two... How can one live in the world -- the actual world, where people have common if flawed understandings across vast areas with billions of inhabitants -- and act as if this is a normal sort of thing to say without opposition?

It's infuriating. It's meant to be. But that's its nature, it's designed to work that way.

This is a bad thread and reflects badly on this board because its title is a call for genocide.

[Luther Blissett]

I finally read "Between the World and Me" and have adopted the term "those who believe themselves to be white".

[Searcher08]

I am familiar with critical race theory and the work of Ignatiev, as well as other, similarly inclined people like Tim Wise.

I have considered the idea that whiteness is not in fact any sort of racial descriptor but is rather a word created to describe a system of institutionalised privilege, and the linked idea that abolishing the white race by any means necessary is in fact -- although it sounds like, and retains the precise syntax of, calls for racial genocide -- a sort of call for human liberation with regard to this system.

You know what? It's horseshit. It's all horseshit. It's horseshit created to sneak out of the back door of the statement "abolish the white race by any means necessary". It's horseshit because it allows, and is designed to allow, its speaker to mouth a severe call to violence and instantly retreat to an airy position of dispersed, theoretical justice-seeking.

However imprecise or problematic or biologically ungrounded its origin, the term "white race" is widely understood to refer to Europeans and European-descended peoples. Imagine a Kampala corner bar where one person of, say, Danish descent is drinking amidst a crowd of mainly Ugandans with perhaps some other people from other sub-Saharan African countries. You go from drinker to drinker with a clipboard and ask people which person is the "white"guy.

What do you think happens? Do you get elaborate dissections of insitutional power, or half-annoyed, colloquially brusque replies indicating the man with the pale skin, blue eyes, straight brown hair -- the man who looks most generally like the peoples of Europe?

And you know this! You know it. Ignatiev knows it. Wise knows it. But you have to go through this every time because maybe you're just not informed, maybe you just haven't done your reading, maybe you need a link or two... How can one live in the world -- the actual world, where people have common if flawed understandings across vast areas with billions of inhabitants -- and act as if this is a normal sort of thing to say without opposition?

It's infuriating. It's meant to be. But that's its nature, it's designed to work that way.

This is a bad thread and reflects badly on this board because its title is a call for genocide.

This.