[RD] The Alt-Right and White Supremacism (from Clown Car II)

[Lexicus]

 

[Light Cleric]

The funny thing is there is actually a way in which that makes sense but from what I've read about that person when this was first posted they seem to be missing a few marbles (as in, all of them) so I somehow doubt they put much thought into that.

 

[Traitorfish]

You've got to admire her optimism, though. The hope that people whose whole and entire shtick is hating people from other countries might temporarily pretend to be something other than the thing I just said, well, that's the sort of faith in the human spirit that's missing from modern politics.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. People don't understand. I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I'm a very intelligent person. That fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person."

—
Trump

For this one you need to hear the soundbyte ... he sounds so ridiculous... like a parody ... he reminds me of one of the old Jerky Boys characters... Sal Rosenberg maybe?

 

[Ryika]

The funny thing is there is actually a way in which that makes sense

What she says is logically consistent, only a person who is dishonest or stupid would come to the conclusion that it's contradictory after thinking about it for a moment.

It's, at least in her mind, an "alliance" of people who all have come together to fight AGAINST the "greater threat" that she perceives, not to all work together and achieve a common, positive goal. What she says is basically: "I'm glad that we all agree that maintaining our national values is more important than creating a globalized world." - there's nothing in Nationalism that prevents people from being willing to work together.

 

[Cutlass]

What she says is logically consistent, only a person who is dishonest or stupid would come to the conclusion that it's contradictory after thinking about it for a moment.

It's, at least in her mind, an "alliance" of people who all have come together to fight AGAINST the "greater threat" that she perceives, not to all work together and achieve a common, positive goal. What she says is basically: "I'm glad that we all agree that maintaining our national values is more important than creating a globalized world." - there's nothing in Nationalism that prevents people from being willing to work together.

Funny thing about that though, is that she and the people who think like her are the primary threat that their people and their nations face.

 

[Ryika]

Funny thing about that though, is that she and the people who think like her are the primary threat that their people and their nations face.

I have no idea who she is, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Light Cleric]

I have no idea who she is, so I can't comment on that.

She's a legit white supremacist.

Like she got put on a list by the Anti-Defamation League and, rather than claim she was being misrepresented or something, she took an...interesting position:

Alt-Right YouTuber Tara McCarthy – featured on the ADL’s list directly below Richard Spencer – posted a video critique of her own. She takes no issue with the ADL’s assertion that the goal of her show is to “help make ethno-nationalist views more socially acceptable, and to educate people on the dangers of globalism and replacement migration from the third world,” noting, “I actually am quite astonished at their level of accuracy.” What she doesn’t understand is why these beliefs – which are xenophobic at best and white-supremacist at worst – are wrong.

 

[Ryika]

She's a legit white supremacist.

Like she got put on a list by the Anti-Defamation League and, rather than claim she was being misrepresented or something, she took an...interesting position:

That would be this article then?

The part about her...

Tara McCarthy is a British alt right media personality who hosts the “Reality Calls” podcast, which boasts the tagline, “Let’s Make Western Civilization Great Again.” The goal of the show is to “help make ethno-nationalist views more socially acceptable, and to educate people on the dangers of globalism and replacement migration from the third world.” She has interviewed numerous white supremacists on the show, but denies being a white supremacist herself. She also co-hosts a podcast (with Brittany Pettibone) called “Virtue of the West,” which features interviews with people associated with both the alt right and the alt lite. McCarthy considers herself part of the alt right.

...seems rather mild. Not exactly views I would agree with - in fact, views that hopefully never become mainstream - but the big white supremacist zinger is missing.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That would be this article then? The part about her...

Tara McCarthy is a British alt right media personality who hosts the “Reality Calls” podcast, which boasts the tagline, “Let’s Make Western Civilization Great Again.” The goal of the show is to “help make ethno-nationalist views more socially acceptable, and to educate people on the dangers of globalism and replacement migration from the third world.” She has interviewed numerous white supremacists on the show, but denies being a white supremacist herself. She also co-hosts a podcast (with Brittany Pettibone) called “Virtue of the West,” which features interviews with people associated with both the alt right and the alt lite. McCarthy considers herself part of the alt right.

...seems rather mild. Not exactly views I would agree with - in fact, views that hopefully never become mainstream - but the big white supremacist zinger is missing.

I think that the bolded is where people draw the conclusion from... in particular "considers herself part of the alt right". I get that you don't subscribe to the view that alt-right=white supremacist, but I and others see the "alt-right" term largely as simply re-branding by white supremacists, who recognize that the latter can be toxic, particularly in more mainstream circles. If we accept that premise, there's your "zinger".

 

[Traitorfish]

What she says is logically consistent, only a person who is dishonest or stupid would come to the conclusion that it's contradictory after thinking about it for a moment.

It's, at least in her mind, an "alliance" of people who all have come together to fight AGAINST the "greater threat" that she perceives, not to all work together and achieve a common, positive goal. What she says is basically: "I'm glad that we all agree that maintaining our national values is more important than creating a globalized world." - there's nothing in Nationalism that prevents people from being willing to work together.

The key word, though, isn't "international" or "globalism", it's "nationalists".

When people like her say "nationalist", they're not referring simply to the idea of sovereignty or even of "national values". They're describing a set of extremely chauvinistic and xenophobic attitudes, which see people from other countries as enemies, rivals or targets, as suits the interests of the speaker's nation-state. Lasting and sincere friendship would require a situation in which two countries possess no territorial, economic or diplomatic conflicts, however minor, yet are culturally similar enough not to regard the other as barbarians, while also remaining culturally distinct enough to discourage any revanchist notions; I can't think of any two such countries which fit that bill.

It's one thing to proclaim such an alliance, but if one participant is screaming "American First", and the next is screaming "Britain First", and the next "Russia First" and "France First" and "Djibouti First"- how is that going to pan out longer term?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I feel like the US and UK fit that bill decently enough.

 

[Traitorfish]

I feel like the US and UK fit that bill decently enough.

Even that's really quite recent, and depends on Britain being just irrelevant enough that it's not a rival to the United States, but just relevant enough that it's worth privileging Britain over the rest of Europe. The former wasn't really true until the 1970s, and the latter may be going out the window with the omnishambles of Brexit. The "special relationship", as a shared sense of historical destiny and not simply as an alignment of foreign policy, may prove to be pretty short-lived, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Sommerswerd]

More countries saying they don't recognize and will not recognize an independent Catalonia: Canada, Italy, France, UK... In addition of course to the US.

Seems like many people in this thread are quite out of touch with reality when they think Catalina has any chance in hell of becoming independent.

And the unsurprising common trait in all those countries: they have regional movements for independence. I am sure there is no causation there

Not that i think that Catalonia will become independent; their own public (or its leader) seem to be afraid of actually paying a price for independence. Well, it doesn't work that way.
They could become independent if they were willing to pay that; even the eu wouldn't be able to support spanish military use against Catalonia.

As for myself... i don't have anything against Spain, though i am not familiar with regional issues there. Maybe a federation would be better, but i doubt this is going to happen either.

There's no significant regional movement for independence in the US... Donald Trump is not a "regional movement for independence" nor is Bernie Sanders.

As for Catalonia, is there any significant independent Catalonia military to actually start an armed bid for independence? Or is this something that must happen, if at all, peacefully, or at least sans full-blown civil war?

There is the Trump factor in US, so you don't need more reasons
Let alone that US was mentioned last, not as part of the group, the usual exceptionalism applies, and i knew that only USians might take issue with it.

I take issue with it beacuse its wrong. I know that you're a closet Trump lover (I love you anyway)... you barely/poorly conceal it, but the fact that his "movement" excites you doesn't mean we have a full blown independence movement going on in the US, no matter how much you wish it did. Plus youre not even here, all you know is what gets fed to you by the pro Trump media you're consuming over there. Again, i loves me sum Kry, but youre just wrong on the facts here buddy.

 

[W|M]

The key word, though, isn't "international" or "globalism", it's "nationalists".

When people like her say "nationalist", they're not referring simply to the idea of sovereignty or even of "national values". They're describing a set of extremely chauvinistic and xenophobic attitudes, which see people from other countries as enemies, rivals or targets, as suits the interests of the speaker's nation-state. Lasting and sincere friendship would require a situation in which two countries possess no territorial, economic or diplomatic conflicts, however minor, yet are culturally similar enough not to regard the other as barbarians, while also remaining culturally distinct enough to discourage any revanchist notions; I can't think of any two such countries which fit that bill.

It's one thing to proclaim such an alliance, but if one participant is screaming "American First", and the next is screaming "Britain First", and the next "Russia First" and "France First" and "Djibouti First"- how is that going to pan out longer term?

Fascists have tried being ''international'' before too, though it didn't work out too well

 

[Kyriakos]

I take issue with it beacuse its wrong. I know that you're a closet Trump lover (I love you anyway)... you barely/poorly conceal it, but the fact that his "movement" excites you doesn't mean we have a full blown independence movement going on in the US, no matter how much you wish it did. Plus youre not even here, all you know is what gets fed to you by the pro Trump media you're consuming over there. Again, i loves me sum Kry, but youre just wrong on the facts here buddy.

I think you can deal fine with myself being a closet Trump-lover, after all you are to the exact same degree a known supporter of the KKK and i don't take offense still

What do you mean? No, you can't say B is absurd... A=B, and you love A ^^

 

[metatron]

The Crusades were long before the Reformation.

Well, there's a case to be made that a revival of sorts occured a century ago.
But that would lead us to debate this hideous flower business unrepentant Imperials can't stop themselves from doing.

There's no significant regional movement for independence in the US... Donald Trump is not a "regional movement for independence" nor is Bernie Sanders.

Well, the more interesting point here in my mind would have been whether you people have figured out if Samoans, Guamanians and Puerto Ricans are actually Americans or not.

And the unsurprising common trait in all those countries: they have regional movements for independence. I am sure there is no causation there

Anyway, ostensibly Madrid is backed - however weakly - by Estonia, Slovenia, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Norway, Finland and the Federal Republic and certainly many more; and none of those face credible/significant independence movements.
(If you now want to debate the exact status of Svalbard we will understand that as your concession of the point. )

 

[Ryika]

When people like her say "nationalist", they're not referring simply to the idea of sovereignty or even of "national values". They're describing a set of extremely chauvinistic and xenophobic attitudes, which see people from other countries as enemies, rivals or targets, as suits the interests of the speaker's nation-state. Lasting and sincere friendship would require a situation in which two countries possess no territorial, economic or diplomatic conflicts, however minor, yet are culturally similar enough not to regard the other as barbarians, while also remaining culturally distinct enough to discourage any revanchist notions; I can't think of any two such countries which fit that bill.

Well, I still have no idea who she is, so I don't know whether she thinks that. Often enough people have made these claims about people that I know don't argue for that, so pardon me if I don't just take that at face value. You seem to know her better than me though, so can you link to any examples that I can have a look at to see those attitudes in action? Because I won't waste my time just looking at random portions of her content.

It's one thing to proclaim such an alliance, but if one participant is screaming "American First", and the next is screaming "Britain First", and the next "Russia First" and "France First" and "Djibouti First"- how is that going to pan out longer term?

Why would it need to pan out longer term? In her view it's an alliance out of necessity, to fight against the greater problem - which in her mind is "globalism". As long as that greater problem exists, the alliance will hold, if it is defeated, the alliance has served its roll and can be disbanded. I don't understand why that's such a foreign concept to you.

I think that the bolded is where people draw the conclusion from... in particular "considers herself part of the alt right". I get that you don't subscribe to the view that alt-right=white supremacist, but I and others see the "alt-right" term largely as simply re-branding by white supremacists, who recognize that the latter can be toxic, particularly in more mainstream circles. If we accept that premise, there's your "zinger".

Okay, but that's a made-up zinger then, purely by virtue of how you've defined the word. IS she actually a white supremacist, or "is" she a "white supremacist" because she's using a label that you've defined differently from how she uses it?

 

[metatron]

I think that the bolded is where people draw the conclusion from... in particular "considers herself part of the alt right". I get that you don't subscribe to the view that alt-right=white supremacist, but I and others see the "alt-right" term largely as simply re-branding by white supremacists, who recognize that the latter can be toxic, particularly in more mainstream circles. If we accept that premise, there's your "zinger".

Well i don't know about you, but the "others" have to make up their mind as to whether they want to apply the term broadly or narrowly.
They can equate alt right with white supremacy.
They can call every conservative who isn't all bible and tax cuts (or for that matter any libertarian or liberal who disagrees with their newest moral spasm) "alt right".
But i'm afraid it has to be one of the two.
They cannot have both things.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I still have no idea who she is, so I don't know whether she thinks that. Often enough people have made these claims about people that I know don't argue for that, so pardon me if I don't just take that at face value. You seem to know her better than me though, so can you link to any examples that I can have a look at to see those attitudes in action? Because I won't waste my time just looking at random portions of her content.

You don't really need to do any research. You just have to note that she has used the word "nationalist" and "globalist" in the same post, presented as opposing forces, and join the dots.

Why would it need to pan out longer term? In her view it's an alliance out of necessity, to fight against the greater problem - which in her mind is "globalism". As long as that greater problem exists, the alliance will hold, if it is defeated, the alliance has served its roll and can be disbanded. I don't understand why that's such a foreign concept to you.

If the forces of Judaism Communism "globalism" are so feeble that they can be defeated before centuries of bad blood can produce even the tiniest cracks in this alliance, what call is there for an alliance in the first place? These people evidently believe in a prolonged struggle, and its really very naive to believe that these hobgoblins can keep a lid on their mutual resentments for anything over, I'm going to say, thirty to thirty-five minutes at a time.