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

[Ryika]

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.

Nationalism and Globalism are opposing forces. Nationalism seeks to keep National Identity and local cultural values strong, while globalist policies seek to lessen the effect of or outright erase borders, and in the process weakens the sense of what is "the nation". That is not the expressed intent of globalist policies (although sometimes it is expressed as a positive argument for globalist policies), but it is certainly an effect.

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.

I don't see the issue. There is a cultural battle for what values people hold, between people who believe that the world should be one big entity, and people who believe that national identities are a good thing and that we should preserve them as much as we can (with many people on both sides who do not fall into these extremes). She seems to just acknowledge that, while she might disagree with the nationalists of other countries on many issues, all of them do the same thing - which is to spread the idea of nationalism as an alternative to an inter-connected world where the old national identities are slowly washed away over time. I do not understand it as a "formal alliance", as in, they're not literally creating a group. It's just a statement of solidarity on the issue - maybe that's the difference between how we read her post.

Anyway. I just had a look at her twitter account, and from what I have seen I take back my reservations about calling her a white supremacist. While I'm not sure whether she just lies about not being one, or really thinks that she is not one, the way she posts negatively about individual cases of black people doing bad things and then uses their actions to generalize black people as a group, and the way she does the exact opposite with white people, seems to point at rather obvious bias.

 

[OldBoomer]

Looks like she's part of that goblin nest over at Breitbart.

 

[metatron]

Looks like she's part of that goblin nest over at Breitbart.

Nah, she's some crazy racist lady who wants to self-deport (she's like half-something, i don't remember).
I'm not sure she could get a job at Breitbart.
I also don't recall if she even identifies as "alt-right", which would be a datum at least tangentially useful in the discussion TF and Valessa are having.

 

[Light Cleric]

After doing a bit of digging, before her last Twitter account was banned, her description was "Follow for unabashed Alt Right commentary".

I believe that qualifies as "identifying as alt-right", yes.

 

[OldBoomer]

Spoiler :

I also don't recall if she even identifies as "alt-right", which would be a datum at least tangentially useful in the discussion TF and Valessa are having.

If it walks like a duck...


Moderator Action: Multiple images spoilered. ~ Arakhor

 

[Sommerswerd]

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 ^^

Since nothing in this reply addresses my point that you were wrong to say that there was a "regional independence movement" going on in the US... I'll take that as a signal that you've accepted that you're wrong and are resorting to joking as deflection. So given your acceptance that you've been debunked, I'll move on and repeat that I still love you anyway

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.

Well that depends entirely on how you define "you people" and how you define "figured out"

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?

In this context, I'm not sure there is any meaningful distinction between a "made up zinger" and a "whatever you define as the opposite of a made up zinger". The point is I was trying to determine whether you were not understanding why folks are calling her a white supremacist or simply not agreeing with it. People often conflate the two, and say "I don't understand how X", when they really mean "I don't agree that X". They fully understand, they are just trying to disagree in a passive aggressive way. I thought that maybe you were genuinely unaware of the alt-right=white supremacist position. I can't tell from your response whether its the former or the latter with you, but it doesn't matter... now you're aware for sure so you can go on disagreeing. At least I know you definitely understand the position.

 

[Ryika]

In this context, I'm not sure there is any meaningful distinction between a "made up zinger" and a "whatever you define as the opposite of a made up zinger". The point is I was trying to determine whether you were not understanding why folks are calling her a white supremacist or simply not agreeing with it. People often conflate the two, and say "I don't understand how X", when they really mean "I don't agree that X". They fully understand, they are just trying to disagree in a passive aggressive way. I thought that maybe you were genuinely unaware of the alt-right=white supremacist position. I can't tell from your response whether its the former or the latter with you, but it doesn't matter... now you're aware for sure so you can go on disagreeing. At least I know you definitely understand the position.

Sure, but that's not the important part for me. I understand that by your standards this makes her a "white supremacist", but nothing inside that quote actually makes her a white supremacist. It is just you applying that label very liberally to label people who may or may not actually fall into the category. That's the difference. I acknowledge that she's a "white supremacist" by your standards, but your standards are meaningless, because your definition of "alt-right = white supremacist" is just nonsense. My quest was not to find out whether she's a "white supremacist", it was to find out whether she is a white supremacist.

The woman in question may not be the best example for that, because I agree that she's at least very close to being an actual white supremacist, so let me give you another example: That guy who wrote that Google manifesto was widely called a "sexist", but when you actually read his "manifesto", there is nothing sexist in it. He merely disputes the idea that discrimination and social indoctrination is all that's holding back women, especially in cases where no discrimination can be found statistically, and instead offers his perspective in how they can get more women into the company (reasonable things, such as increasing the social elements of the job). Yet he was branded a "sexist" for stating these things, for acknowledging statistical differences between the sexes that are taboo, hell, some women even came forward and said they don't feel safe in the company because of the attitudes of one person.

Yes, calling him a "sexist" because he "disagrees with the accepted dogma about the sexes" is internally consistent if part of your definition of "sexism" is that people who disagree with your dogma are sexist, but it is simply not consistent with the definition of actual sexism. Just as calling her a "white supremacist" because she's part of the alt right is consistent with (and apparently purely based on) your statement that "alt right = white supremacists", but is not consistent with what is an actual member of the alt right, and what is an actual white supremacist. There is overlap between the two groups, but there are many reasons why people fall into the alt right. Especially in cases where they do NOT actually self-identify as such, but are instead labeled by their opposition.

This case is different of course, because the claim was that she's a "legit white supremacist" because she did not get offended by being put onto a list by the ADL, but when I looked into the part about her, it's rather mild and does not at all paint her as a white supremacist. It's just that that article has some trigger words that mark her as a "white supremacist", but whether she actually is a white supremacist I can't decide based on that article, because nothing in it screams white supremacist to me, a person who is not interested in trigger words. And hey, it's the ADL, they think Pepe and the Not Equal Sign are Hate Symbols, and that Anita Sarkeesian is a trustworthy source for unbiased information.

But again, on Twitter she does do a good job at making herself look like a racist who thinks black people as a group are bad, so there's that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The woman in question may not be the best example for that, because I agree that she's at least very close to being an actual white supremacist

We may disagree on this as well, but I don't see much meaningful or substantive distinction between "white supremacist" and "at least very close to being an actual white supremacist". In this type of characterization, as you allude to at length, there is a substantial degree of subjectivity in folk's determinations... so again in that framework, there is little meaningful difference between "is" and "is at least very close to", since the subjectivity that I think we both recognize at play in this hair-splitting, effectively blurs the line between "is" and "close".

 

[Ryika]

We may disagree on this as well, but I don't see much meaningful or substantive distinction between "white supremacist" and "at least very close to being an actual white supremacist". In this type of characterization, as you allude to at length, there is a substantial degree of subjectivity in folk's determinations... so again in that framework, there is little meaningful difference between "is" and "is at least very close to", since the subjectivity that I think we both recognize at play in this hair-splitting, effectively blurs the line between "is" and "close".

No, I think we actually agree on that when it comes to the effect they have on the world. The distinction I make between the two is mostly about what is in the head of a person, and their reasoning for why they do what they do. A white supremacist has accepted the idea that white people are superior to other races, a person who is close to being a white supremacist is a person who has not accepted that idea as a general concept, but is so biased in their perception of the world that functionally, they are pretty much the same.

This is generally not an important distinction to make - unless you want to directly interact with that person and change their beliefs - and if you were to label her a white supremacist based on the knowledge I have now, then I would not object to that. But that stance comes from having read what she actually writes on twitter, not from the trigger-word-heavy ADL-list that was brought forward as evidence, and not from her self-identifying as a member of the Alt Right.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: I've split this topic off into a new thread. Do not make me regret it, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

Nationalism and Globalism are opposing forces. Nationalism seeks to keep National Identity and local cultural values strong, while globalist policies seek to lessen the effect of or outright erase borders, and in the process weakens the sense of what is "the nation". That is not the expressed intent of globalist policies (although sometimes it is expressed as a positive argument for globalist policies), but it is certainly an effect.

That is the narrative espoused by the far-right, yes. Whether it's actually true is a debate in and of itself; observe, for instance, the "globalist" EU's recent role in propping up Spanish nationalism in Spain. It seems more reasonable, and less generally Hitler-y, to imagine "globalism" not as the unfolding of some grand master plan, but as the simple consequence of various powerful institutions pursuing their own interests, and relating to various competing nationalisms pragmatically.

I don't see the issue. There is a cultural battle for what values people hold, between people who believe that the world should be one big entity, and people who believe that national identities are a good thing and that we should preserve them as much as we can (with many people on both sides who do not fall into these extremes). She seems to just acknowledge that, while she might disagree with the nationalists of other countries on many issues, all of them do the same thing - which is to spread the idea of nationalism as an alternative to an inter-connected world where the old national identities are slowly washed away over time. I do not understand it as a "formal alliance", as in, they're not literally creating a group. It's just a statement of solidarity on the issue - maybe that's the difference between how we read her post.

Is there anything in the post itself which actually suggests we should interpret in this way, or is that simply the interpretation required for the post to appear reasonable?

I mean, I am generally sympathetic to the position that we should be charitable when interpreting what people say, that we should assume they are expressing a coherent position. But your interpretation is, I think, only superficially more charitable, because McCarthy has already aligned herself clearly with the "anti-globalisation" right, simply by the terms in which she has framed the post, and it is less coherent with the analysis and aims espoused by that movement to interpret her comments as some flowery declaration of #solidarity than simply to take it for what it appears to be.

 

[Broken_Erika]

So Trumps presidency continues its journey through the sewers causing all kinds of sewer monsters and **** demons to come crawling out.

 

[OldBoomer]

Being a nationalist, or saying white lives matter isn't white supremacy and conflating these ideas isn't doing any good. As I said yesterday, the only thing she seems to be part of is that goblin nest over at Breitbart.

That is the narrative espoused by the far-right, yes.

I'm sure actual white supremacists do latch onto nationalism because it's a political movement that's more in-line with their ideology than liberal global ambitions, however that doesn't make nationalism a white supremacist ideology or mean that every nationalist is a secret white supremacist.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No, I think we actually agree on that when it comes to the effect they have on the world. The distinction I make between the two is mostly about what is in the head of a person, and their reasoning for why they do what they do. A white supremacist has accepted the idea that white people are superior to other races, a person who is close to being a white supremacist is a person who has not accepted that idea as a general concept, but is so biased in their perception of the world that functionally, they are pretty much the same.

This is generally not an important distinction to make - unless you want to directly interact with that person and change their beliefs - and if you were to label her a white supremacist based on the knowledge I have now, then I would not object to that. But that stance comes from having read what she actually writes on twitter, not from the trigger-word-heavy ADL-list that was brought forward as evidence, and not from her self-identifying as a member of the Alt Right.

You made an important point earlier that others seem to be making, so I want to point it out:

Just as calling her a "white supremacist" because she's part of the alt right is consistent with (and apparently purely based on) your statement that "alt right = white supremacists", but is not consistent with what is an actual member of the alt right, and what is an actual white supremacist. There is overlap between the two groups, but there are many reasons why people fall into the alt right. Especially in cases where they do NOT actually self-identify as such, but are instead labeled by their opposition.

There are two points about this and I'd like to use an analogy. If you consider three ice-cream flavors... Chocolate, Chocolate-Fudge-Walnut and finally, Rocky Road... It's clear that technically speaking, they are absolutely not the same. But at the same time, is also clear that practically speaking, they are all forms of chocolate ice cream. Just as I see Klan, Neo Nazis and alt-right as technically different forms of what is practically the same thing, white supremacists.

My perspective, is that white supremacists grew tired of being called "chocolate ice cream" so they rebranded as "Rocky Road" (alt-right) and then added/attracted the nuts and marshmallows. Of course the nuts and marshmallows will protest that they aren't strictly speaking chocolate ice cream themselves, but then again, they're in the chocolate ice cream and have become so intermixed with it as to become part of the total package. Your perspective seems to be more along the lines that the non-white supremacists formed the alt-right and then the white supremacists plopped a scoop of their chocolate ice cream on top of the nuts and marshmallows. Again, I agree that in the abstract sense, there can be people who self identify as alt-right who do not consider themselves white supremacists or hold to white supremacist ideology, but as you point out, as it relates to the particular person we are discussing (and those like her), it doesn't really matter. And I'll add that from my perspective, they're all in it together, even if there is a higher degree of complexity in the mixture.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Being a nationalist, or saying white lives matter isn't white supremacy and conflating these ideas isn't doing any good. As I said yesterday, the only thing she seems to be part of is that goblin nest over at Breitbart.

I'd give you nationalist, because they're not just specifically opposed to other color people, but also to same color people of different countries, but "white lives matter" is definitely a racist/white supremacist catch phrase. There's a very specific subset of people who use this term and there's a lot of overlap with people who like to say "globalist". You can judge a book by its words.

 

[Traitorfish]

As a general observation, if you're defending somebody as "not technically a white supremacist", you're either implicitly conceding that the person in question is to all practical purposes a white supremacist, or making the claim that holding white supremacist beliefs is only technically wrong.

 

[OldBoomer]

I'd give you nationalist, because they're not just specifically opposed to other color people, but also to same color people of different countries, but "white lives matter" is definitely a racist/white supremacist catch phrase. There's a very specific subset of people who use this term and there's a lot of overlap with people who like to say "globalist". You can judge a book by its words.

But, what is it specifically about the phrase "white lives matter" that makes it a racist/white supremacist catch phrase? If all you're going on is guilt by association that's a pretty weak argument.

If [insert horrible name here] says that red is their favorite color and anyone who's favorite color is blue should be forced to eat peanut butter - that doesn't mean that everyone else who also likes the color red shares the same sentiments toward people who's favorite color is blue.

As a general observation, if you're defending somebody as "not technically a white supremacist", you're either implicitly conceding that the person in question is to all practical purposes a white supremacist, or making the claim that holding white supremacist beliefs is only technically wrong.

I don't think you can make that kind of a judgement unless you see the person in question engaging in behavior that is explicitly white supremacy, otherwise you're assuming things to be true which are really unknowable about that person.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think you can make that kind of a judgement unless you see the person in question engaging in behavior that is explicitly white supremacy, otherwise you're assuming things to be true which are really unknowable about that person.

This isn't actually a contradiction of what I've said. You're just quibbling the appropriateness of the term "white supremacist", not its moral or political content. You've conceded that this person is white supremacist-adjacent, even that they may be espousing an implicit white supremacism- and is that fine distinction really worth the argument? Is McCarthy herself worth the argument?

I understand the concern about over-using terms like "Nazi" or "white supremacist", that it appears to provide a roundabout fig-leaf to actual Nazis and white supremacists. But if this woman has made it very clearly that she is comfortable reproducing white supremacist talking points, in advancing the political goals espoused by white supremacists, that she is not ashamed or embarrassed by the association, then she has very clearly picked a side, and there is no tactical misstep and making that clear. The American electorate, God love 'em, are just about smart enough that most of them will appreciate that.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not seeing how 'white supremacism' can even exist outside of some very distinctly germanic-north euro setting, cause it isn't as if most of Europe is of one 'race' (assuming one identifies distinct races). So the term itself is misleading, cause it isn't about 'white' people, but some subgroup. Neither latin, nor greek, slavic or other groups are germanic, while they are white (another over-group anyway). Let alone that some euro 'ethnic groups' are asian (finnish and hungric, for example), and others are (at least nominally) steppe (bulgarian).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

But, what is it specifically about the phrase "white lives matter" that makes it a racist/white supremacist catch phrase? If all you're going on is guilt by association that's a pretty weak argument.

Oh, come on !
"Black lives matter" started in reaction to black people still being murdered by cops. When and why did the phrase "white lives matter" crop up ? Are white people being killed disproportionally by American police ? Are white people subjected to profiling ? I think not. It started as a reaction to black lives matter. It's not a reaction to oppression, it's a reaction to another's group protest against oppression and I can't fathom that there's any other motive but racism behind this.
Now, a lot of white people have legitimate grievances and are being oppressed and discriminated against, White women, white poor people, white gay people and so on, but they aren't discriminated because they are white, but because they're female/poor/gay.
Focusing on the one trait that isn't a disadvantage (and one that a homeless person might have in common with a billionaire) is pretty skeevy.