[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yes,they always have and always will. Part of why I was originally drawn to the Left was precisely because it didn't - or at least aspired not to. Now I feel essentially homeless, from a political pov.

#2

so kept thinking about this and did a search and ran into this very smart guy

https://www.salon.com/2015/08/25/whi...poor_white s/

unfortunately nobody is listening to him ha ha ha ha
(or maybe only the right is)

i looked at other articles by him and there are truly some sobering ones. will post links.

[!@#$%!]

but first, some choice quotes from the link above

Is this racist? Of course. But it’s easy to misunderstand what this means. At its core, racism is not about xenophobic reactions to difference, stereotyping people from other groups, or a sense of intrinsic superiority. Racism is about preserving a socio-economic order which privileges the majority group (in this case, whites) at the expense of minorities. And while hate can (and typically does) play an important role in justifying this cause, strictly speaking, it is not necessary: there are plenty of racists who do not hate black people, per se. Many may even have black friends and colleagues whom they hold in great esteem. But this does little to alleviate the gnawing, pervasive and persistent fear that the empowerment of minorities will ultimately come at the expense of whites. For those many white Americans already struggling (or failing) to keep their head above water or support their families, this prospect doesn’t just induce dread—it motivates resistance.

in other words, it’s a case of crabs in a bucket. this corresponds well to the analysis of dog whistle politics from the lópez guy i quoted above. only the phrasing is a little different. i’ll show...

[!@#$%!]

he goes on later

For contemporary racist movements, keeping down minorities is a means towards the end of preserving white dominance over society; it is rarely an end unto itself. Groups typically recruit people, not with hate,
but by evoking love for one’s family, community and way of life, or else appealing to pride in one’s history, heritage and culture. The call is for white people to band together against the forces which threaten these—a mandate through which many find comradery and purpose. It’s counterintuitive perhaps, but the sales pitch for racism relies heavily on positive messaging. This is why so many who participate in ethnic nationalist and separatist groups are so sincerely convinced that they are not racist.

[!@#$%!]

he goes on to describe the teslas and their identity politics, but begins to points towards a solution...



Because the literature from these groups is rife with revisionist history, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and problematic (or outright false and falsified) empirical claims, it is tempting to dismiss members as whackos or fools—but this would be a mistake. These elements cohere into a mythology which substantiates and reinforces the white identity that so many Americans believe is under siege—and in turn produces a community to protect it. Outsiders sniping at parts of this belief system merely reinforces this siege mentality and further polarizes adherents. The only way to really undermine these groups is to eliminate their raison d’etre.

[!@#$%!]

and here he follows with the core of his argument and a criticism that i think you also share:

And so the task of social justice advocates should be obvious: to convincingly argue and demonstrate to poor white Americans that it is possible to preserve or even improve their condition and at the same time raise up marginalized groups. Not only have activists miserably failed at this task, their message and tactics regularly alienate impoverished whites while confirming racist narratives. It should be no surprise then that ethnic nationalist and separatist movements have been rapidly expanding in America (and across Western democracies), while their ideology and methods are growing increasingly extreme, and increasingly effective. If the current dynamics continue unchecked, we should expect the problem to grow worse.

[!@#$%!]

cont.,



America’s demographics, economy and culture are evolving rapidly—and as the primary stakeholders in the current socio-economic order, white Americans believe they have the most to lose from these changes. As white privilege is increasingly critiqued and challenged, many have come to fear that minorities have become racist against them, that they are increasingly the victims of reverse-discrimination, and that whites will be increasingly marginalized and persecuted in the future as minorities continue to rise (often resting on the premise that these groups will act as a monolith).

When they express these fears, adherents are immediately denounced as ignorant, bigoted or intolerant. Meanwhile, their own culture is mocked and derided with total impunity: It is perfectly acceptable to denigrate impoverished whites as rednecks, hillbillies, trailer trash, white trash, and so on—to mock their religion, traditions, and even their suffering.



this is clear and evident and nowhere better illustrated for us than in this very thread

we are all trapped in a racialized struggle, while the rich laugh nonstop

[!@#$%!]

The antipathy impoverished whites often get from minority groups and their liberal white advocates is perhaps the single greatest cause for their resentment of “other” poor people. Because progressives typically look down on this constituency as ignorant, stupid or crazy, they tend to believe that right-wing politicians are duping poor white people into voting against their best interests—and accordingly, that they can “help” these lost souls “see the light” by presenting them with the relevant “facts” about racial inequality—oblivious that this kind of condescension is precisely the problem:

White voters know that GOP candidates will target the poor and bolster the wealthy; this is precisely what they are electing them to do. It is clear that some already-disadvantaged whites may become worse off in some respects (although the policies are often tailored to minimize this), but white voters are confident that “others” will be harmed far more. As a result, the position of white people, even poor white people, may be enhanced relative to the minorities who bear the brunt of these actions. In other words, this voting pattern is not illogical--it is a war of attrition to preserve the status quo.



so while lópez sez they are convinced to vote agains their own interests, this guys see the logic of *a war of attrition*

i agree with this now over the previous explanation

this is very good

this guy is very good

he’s got more articles in salon that came after this 2015 piece. in a recent one he predicts trump getting reelected in 2020. and he makes perfect sense. shudder!

[!@#$%!]

ps- his twitter feed is a gold mine

https://twitter.com/musa_algharbi

[demonrail666]

The only bit I disagree with, and to be fair this is solely from my perspective, as someone brought up in a very ethnically diverse part of London, so it may not apply to the country as a whole, let alone the US, is the bit about resentment towards other poor groups.

My experience is that the resentment is overwhelmingly aimed at liberal whites (traditionally dismissed as 'do-gooders') more than it is to other ethnicities. Equally, I feel the racism towards poor white sections of society is far more prevalent within liberal white society than from black or asian communities. Within the kind of diverse communities I know, social-mixing between ethnic groups has been a simple fact of life for decades and for the most part the different groups get along. It's an extremely poor area so there are huge tensions there and there'll always be those who scapegoat other races as a reason for their own plight, from both sides, but on the whole I'd say people of my generation and below (I'm almost 50) for whom diversity has always been a norm are pretty cool with it. Yes there was a lot of racism in the 70s and 80s when traditionally white working class areas first encountered the large-scale arrival of different ethnic groups into their communities but on the whole I'd say those tensions were fairly quickly resolved. Never completely obviously but I'd say those communities have done pretty well on their own trying to work things out.

What I can't stand is when white liberals who have either next to know experience of diversity or else sample it for a little while as something exotic, tproject their own racism onto those who are actually (in my experience) far less racist in their everyday life than they are.

My point is, I'd say the bulk of white working class people I know hate (and I really mean hate) liberals (usually white but not always) far more than they do black or asian people from their own community. (I mention asian in the british sense, meaning people from India., Pakistan, etc, rather than China, etc, which I know is what it tends to mean in the US).

But I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm only talking about my experience.

[!@#$%!]

here in the u.s ive lived in different places and find that those ethnic struggles do exist in various degrees in various communities, as well as in the media.

but i agree with you that liberals can be overbearingly preachy, self-righteous, and close-minded. i tend to fall into those patterns at times because often they have offered ready explanations for apparent absurdities i can’t figure out. readymade answers. but i’m always for reason and rationality in the end.

for example, when i was trying to figure out if i should buy a home defense weapon, and discussed it with people, my liberal acquaintances chastised me as a repugnant heretic and an idiot, whereas the conservative ones actually discussed pros and cons and offered useful suggestions.

guess what i ended up doing...

so here we have for example ildouche’s debating style, which i find highly repugnant and know to be a turnoff. agree or get ignored, chastise rather than argue, etc. liberals eat their own.

on the other side, however, is loco tesla!

and so i must choose sides

in spite of many issues i find problematic among liberals, ultimately i must go with whoever is closer to my political ideals. especially in a big tent party system.

so i will vote with ildouche 9 times out of 10.

it’s just what it is.

so i think you still belong on the left. you might be disgruntled, looking for answers, feeling betrayed , fighting for a niche... but ultimately probably just are having a family argument rather than being truly homeless.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I sure hate to butt into the interesting and enjoyable conversation between !@#$%! and demonrail666, but much of what al Gharbi says is pretty much the same as what I've been saying all along!

no, sorry, not quite

you illustrate what he’s saying, but you’re not saying the same thing

you have spoken of white working class pain, but from an already racialized anti immigrant perspective

i still remember also when the paris terror attacks happened you had the poor sense to post a link to a medieval crusader chant about killing muslims

i mean, you’re not exactly the model spokesperson for supraethnic rationality

but you do illustrate one of the polarities that al gharbi describes, yes, i will concede that, and the response to you has come from the opposite polarity, yes

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I've already pointed out the fact that my opinion on immigration is the traditional labor perspective on that issue, thus also indicating the alien class origin of the liberals' position on that issue. I've also explained that the reason for my having posted that song (which I dedicated to the French Air Force), was due to the fact that they were attacking ISIS, which the US was still refusing to attack in any serious way at that time (which, you may recall, was while Obama was still in office).

yeah the guy is not asking for the “traditional” anything, but a new thing, and in fact acknowledges that racism is this country’s tradition. so you have not been saying what he’s saying. at all.

(and i should add, labor has been traditionally racist).

what he is saying is that minorities have more to gain from an alliance with poor whites than by pursuing a purely antiracist policy where they are left fighting for scraps against poor whites

again, not what you have been saying.

you keep discounting racism altogether, or pretending it doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t matter. this is not what he says, at all.

...

and asking for the use of force by appealing to the spirit of the crusades is... well... where should i begin...

...just so fucking medieval

[!@#$%!]

o

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

One of my posts explaining my position on immigration included a quote on the subject by African-American labor leader A. Phillip Randolf, who pointedly called for the exclusion of "Negroes from the West Indies" among many other groups, apparently in reaction to having his strong anti-immigrant position being labeled as anti-white. And I've NEVER denied the centrality of the struggle for racial equality in the course of American history. I've simply said that labeling opposition to illegal immigration as inherently racist constitutes the racializing of an essentially class issue.

lol “negroes”

i have to get on the road soon so i can’t reply to this old-timey west indies business, but let me repeat: you are not saying what musa al gharbi is saying

stop giving yourself credit for intellectual achievements that are not yours, ideas you haven’t articulated, credentials you don’t have, etc.

okay.

adios.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I've already pointed out the fact that my opinion on immigration is the traditional labor perspective on that issue, thus also indicating the alien class origin of the liberals' position on that issue.

It's two Lefts. Where I disagree with Symbols is that I see no way of reconciling them. If anything, they're almost diametrically opposed.

Unless someone can find a way of connecting this lot:

 

with this lot:

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

labor has been traditionally racist.

Labour has been traditionally suspicious of anything that threatens its livelihood, be it foreigners or technology.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It's two Lefts. Where I disagree with Symbols is that I see no way of reconciling them. If anything, they're almost diametrically opposed.

Unless someone can find a way of connecting this lot:

 

with this lot:

 

a bit too manipulative and i don’t know who those are (“snowflakes” sez the pic name)

let’s take it step by step

can you connect these two?

 

 

or no?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Labour has been traditionally suspicious of anything that threatens its livelihood, be it foreigners or technology.

 

thoughts?

[!@#$%!]

beatnik = snowflake?

 

not sure it translates...

[demonrail666]

I wasn't being altogether serious. Yes, when you replace the picture, of course they can be connected, or at least seriously compared. They both fought for their rights, although the Labour movement had no genuine interest in egalitarianism (and therefore had the capacity to switch between communism and fascism) whereas the civil rights movement, reflected in the picture of black protesters, was fundamentally tied to classical liberalism (taking the fascist, and arguably even communist, options off the table altogether). Meanwhile the snowflakes in the picture I posted don't seem to know what they really believe. Hence why they're invariably so crap at debating.

Although as a vehicle for memes, they're the .gif that never stops giving

 

[!@#$%!]

i 1000x prefer to laugh at the crying neonazi

 

you’re picking your targets wrong