# Asymmetrical Multiculturalism



## Lensherr (Mar 30, 2019)

Facebook's recent banning of white nationalist and white separatist viewpoints, and the justification for doing so that it's because those two ideologies are indistinguishable from white supremacy [4], has got me thinking a lot about some reading that I've been doing about the current progressive dogma of condemning white people for pushing group interests while encouraging non-white groups to collectivize, and the implications that it has for the future of currently white-majority nations.

Sociologist Eric Kaufmann once coined a term that describes this phenomenon in his book _The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America_: "asymmetrical multiculturalism", as he calls it, happens when minority groups within a country are encouraged to openly express pride in their ethnic heritage as well as group solidarity as a means of advancing their groups' interests, whereas the majority culture is discouraged from doing the same, instead being chided into adopting a form of rootless cosmopolitanism divorced from their cultural and ethnic background [1]. This happened in America during the late-1800s and early-1900s, as white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) began to be discouraged from clinging to their heritage as non-WASP European migrants flooded into the country and were subsequently encouraged to do the opposite. 

In his more recent tome _Whiteshift:_ _Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities_, Kaufmann describes how this same phenomenon is occurring with respect to the current demographics of the country: minorities of African, Asian, and Hispanic descent are being encouraged by the progressive intelligentsia (the majority, or at least a plurality, of which I should note are white) to "celebrate a politicized version of their identity", whereas the general white European-descended majority "are compelled to be cosmopolitan, urged to supersede their ascribed identity": in other words, the opposite of what the aforementioned minorities are enjoined to do [2][3]

In other words, ethnic nationalism is like saying the word "nigger": it's only a problem when white people do it. 

This is essentially the phenomenon on display here by this action taken by Facebook: non-white identity is something benign, something to be celebrated even, whereas white identity is inherently dangerous and supremacist. In the classical, non-bastardized sense of the term, this is racism. What is it about whites that makes their expression of group solidarity and pride in their heritage inherently dangerous, and for non-whites inherently positive? Can the reason be discerned without being caked under a thick layer of academic, sociopolitical jargon that isn't necessarily universal? And if so, does that mean that there is is a fixed, immutable characteristic of white people's nature, in which case, if one were to make the argument, the progressive belief of race as a purely sociological construct begins to fall apart. Either way, this pattern of behavior is emblematic of the hypocrisy and bigotry of progressive ideology: they have no desire to see everybody to play by the same rules or justice for the truly disenfranchised, only to undermine the influence of a group that they see as being the root cause of all the world's societal ills.

I think it's reasonable to ask the progressive thinkers of this ideology at what point do white people have the same right as these other groups to advocate for their own group interests without being branded as bigoted. Recent projections show that if current trends in immigration and birthrates continue, the US will become minority white by as early as 2045, which is just slightly over 25 years time [5]. In that case, will whites finally have the right to adopt the same brand of identity politics that their non-white countrymen are currently culturally-entitled to espouse? And if it's only then, then why is it morally wrong for whites to not want to become a minority in the countries that they founded, and why must they let their nations be the home of the entire world when the people that they let in currently have their own homelands almost, if not entirely exclusively to their own domain? These are all very tough questions for progressive multiculturalism proponents to answer, and whatever answers they give (if any) would do a great deal to reveal their true intentions and beliefs.

Sauces:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013032
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/024131710X?tag=prhmarketing2552-21
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/populism-identity-politics-why-they-rise-in-tandem/
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...k-bans-white-nationalism-and-white-separatism
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...ecome-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/


----------



## Damn Near (Mar 30, 2019)

tldr: jews are scum


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Mar 30, 2019)

Anyone who thinks White Americans aren't allowed to express ethnic pride has never been in South Boston for the St. Patrick's Day parade. (Unless you're not counting Irish people as white).

Anyway, I'm half-WASP myself, and I'm not sure what sort of cultural things you want me to take pride in. Racquetball? Going to the most boring church services in the world? Being Republican, the kind where you like gays as long as your kid isn't one, are okay with blacks but not in your neighborhood, dislike Southerners, and want low taxes except for the property taxes that keep your school district good? Eating awful Yankee mush? 

The dumb thing about 'white pride' as opposed to, say, 'Irish-American pride' is white just means 'person of European descent and sometimes West Asian if they're pale enough'. There's not the same shared cultural background. And among WASPs, since they've been in this country so long, they've developed vastly different cultures that frequently don't care for each other (see my above comment about disliking Southerners). I maintain the only reason 'white nationalism' can exist is because they have a non-white other to hate; if American suddenly became 100% white, we would go back to Catholic vs Protestant (vs Mormon?), Italians would probably get kicked out of the white club, regional identifiers would become more important, etc.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Mar 30, 2019)

Part of the problem with that "whites will be a minority" thing is that it posits that the issue is simply WHITES vs. EVERYBODY. There will still be more whites than any other race, there just won't be more whites than all other races COMBINED. I don't see what the issue is, personally, I'm a mutt of several different European ancestries and honestly don't give much of a fuck if my neighbors look like me as long as they're good people.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Mar 30, 2019)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> The dumb thing about 'white pride' as opposed to, say, 'Irish-American pride' is white just means 'person of European descent and sometimes West Asian if they're pale enough'. There's not the same shared cultural background. And among WASPs, since they've been in this country so long, they've developed vastly different cultures that frequently don't care for each other (see my above comment about disliking Southerners). I maintain the only reason 'white nationalism' can exist is because they have a non-white other to hate; if American suddenly became 100% white, we would go back to Catholic vs Protestant (vs Mormon?), Italians would probably get kicked out of the white club, regional identifiers would become more important, etc.


 While I agree that people will always find or create In and Out groups, I can't support your claim of a lack of "shared cultural background" From Greece to Rome to Chistendom (a term we don't see much of any more but in older works appears a lot) to the enlightenment Western Europeans and their offshoots share a foundation of standards both cultural and intellectual. There's much more to the heritage of a white person than the intentionally negative WASP traits. It's sad that it all got dumbed down and sold for cheap in the consumerist 80s but the cultural artifacts themselves (Aristotle, Shakespear, Renoir) still exist even if their claimants have abandoned them.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Mar 30, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> While I agree that people will always find or create In and Out groups, I can't support your claim of a lack of "shared cultural background" From Greece to Rome to Chistendom (a term we don't see much of any more but in older works appears a lot) to the enlightenment Western Europeans and their offshoots share a foundation of standards both cultural and intellectual. There's much more to the heritage of a white person than the intentionally negative WASP traits. It's sad that it all got dumbed down and sold for cheap in the consumerist 80s but the cultural artifacts themselves (Aristotle, Shakespear, Renoir) still exist even if their claimants have abandoned them.


Is Shakespeare the cultural heritage of some Slav whose parents moved here after the USSR fell? You can't just say well, Slavs aren't white, because they are in fact white by American racial rules.

Even among people of Western European descent, I simply don't see much commonalities. Sure, the Enlightenment. But when it comes to food, or faith, or lifestyle, which are way bigger aspects of what people perceive as immediate culture, not so much. The KKK went after Catholics too.

Actually, this would make for a great reality show. Get the most stereotypical representatives of each type of white American person and make them all live in a house together. Have like, an Irish-American, an Italian-American, a Scandinavian-American, a Southern Baptist, a Mormon...


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 30, 2019)

Lensherr said:


> What is it about whites that makes their expression of group solidarity and pride in their heritage inherently dangerous, and for non-whites inherently positive?



Because it is in the interest of the people that want whites dead.

Pride is necessity to fight for things, it's valuing and promoting something. Elites propagate culture that only allows pride of other races, as well as gays and transgenderism.

By not allowing say, a white pride parade, they are saying to whites: you are alone, you are without power and even if you fought for it, nobody would honor you.

It isn't true, but that's the message sent with pride & parades. If you control morality, you control most things in a society.


----------



## GS 281 (Mar 31, 2019)

I like to copypaste my longposts, too.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 31, 2019)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Actually, this would make for a great reality show. Get the most stereotypical representatives of each type of white American person and make them all live in a house together. Have like, an Irish-American, an Italian-American, a Scandinavian-American, a Southern Baptist, a Mormon..



There was room for individual niches of whiteness. One of the big lies of multiculturalism is that it lets everybody be themselves, a better expression of themselves. Like many things in our clown world the reverse is true. The more you are with people like you, the more you are possible at being yourself.

Americans became white from italian-catholic, protestant-irish etc, due to being more and more outnumbered by nonwhites. When you're born in new york, you regard it as considerably different from someone from new jersey. You meet the same person in italy and you say: hey, a fellow american. You meet an italian in Gambia and you say: hey, a fellow white. Well, you don't because you've been taught that particular one is bad.

You meet someone on mars from gambia and you say: hey a fellow human.

You sort into less-personally identifying groups as you get into groups that are more diverse (using diverse in original sense, not modern anti-white sense).

Because that same new york guy wasn't american, or white or human in his block, he was the guy that made jokes about cars at parties.

The more diverse groups get, the more everyone is stereotyped, the more people do not understand each other, the more we have to communicate superficially. This isn't just in racial, also significantly in culture/religion and even sex.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Mar 31, 2019)

The East/West schism presents an interesting dichotomy to be sure but to answer your immediate question Shakespear is one of the inspirations of Turgenev and Pushkin and a subject of criticism for Tolstoy. He plays were published. taught in schools and staged even in the Soviet era. (source: https://collation.folger.edu/2017/03/archives-shakespeare-ussr/ ). The average Russian immigrant to the U.S.A. would recognize "E tu Brute" or "Romeo Romeo"

I guess you could chalk it up to people finding what they want to find but I do see a lot of commonalities in lifestyle and faith between whites. In fact the only real stratification I encounter is more economic than national-origin based. I don't know how you'd feel if you saw what I saw, but honestly it makes me a little sad to notice everything turning into one big flavorless mess.

I would also watch that show.
(please forgive if that link is messed up I'm new here)


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Mar 31, 2019)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Anyone who thinks White Americans aren't allowed to express ethnic pride has never been in South Boston for the St. Patrick's Day parade. (Unless you're not counting Irish people as white).


Yeah, but the Irish have never really been accepted as being white. They got it just as hard as any other non white ethnic group that came to America. I'm pretty sure they're the reason the term "white niggers" exists.


----------



## Krokodil Overdose (Mar 31, 2019)

Sword Fighter Super said:


> Yeah, but the Irish have never really been accepted as being white. They got it just as hard as any other non white ethnic group that came to America. I'm pretty sure they're the reason the term "white niggers" exists.


Not really true, it's more accurate to say that they were white trash avant la lettre. NINA was a thing, but they were never considered non-white for the purpose of (say) anti-miscegenation laws. They were just regarded as shit-tier whites for the longest time, like the Italians (who, like them, were ethnic and PAPISTS GET OUT REEEEEEE)


----------



## ICametoLurk (Mar 31, 2019)

You see, you can tell who is in charge by who allows people to bitch about them. By bitching about Whites they are showing that Whites are the boss, and when Whites bitch about Jews then Jews are the boss.

It's a Progressive Racial Hierarchy.


----------



## Lensherr (Mar 31, 2019)

BigRuler said:


> exceptional individual
> 
> the same "argument" applies to 'black pride' and pretty much every single other minority identity movement exactly as it does to whites.
> you're literally perpetuating and engaging in the exact same practice of double standards and anti white line of thinking that OP is calling out, probably without even realizing it due to how heavily you are indoctrinated with it


The main argument that I've heard about as to why black pride is okay but white pride is not is because American blacks are descended from people who were forcibly removed from their homelands, and thus have no ties to them as a result, so the only the thing that they have in common is that they're from Africa. Most whites on the other hand came to the country voluntarily, so they did remember their homelands and passed on their specific traditions to their descendants.

Of course, this doesn't mean that people of European descent have no shared cultural background between them that they can celebrate, and all of the different white ethnic groups that immigrated to America have all become very mixed together to the point where whites share more in common with each other than ever before, not to mention DNA testing technology has advanced to the point where it's very easy to determine one's country(ies) of origin. It's why I find this argument to ring very hollow and simply an attempt to perpetuate said double standards and anti-white mindset.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Mar 31, 2019)

Lensherr said:


> The main argument that I've heard about as to why black pride is okay but white pride is not is because American blacks are descended from people who were forcibly removed from their homelands, and thus have no ties to them as a result, so the only the thing that they have in common is that they're from Africa. Most whites on the other hand came to the country voluntarily, so they did remember their homelands and passed on their specific traditions to their descendants.


That's kind of the weird thing about Americans though. all 4 of my grandparents came from the same non-america country and you would never know it by talking to any of their descendants. They assimilated quietly and with great difficulty into white culture despite: 1- not being white and 2 -  living in economically depressed region where, at least by percentage of people white was not the dominate race. I don't have any of their "specific traditions" now any more than I would have had if my grandparents had been dragged here in chains. I got parented and educated to have the same bland yet pleasant and polite white culture as most people with nothing more "specific" than my middle name.
Maybe that's the rub? the deracinated feelings that current year whites have plus the bizarre restrictions on being proud of any small scraps of identity they still cling to.


----------



## Slap47 (Mar 31, 2019)

ICametoLurk said:


> You see, you can tell who is in charge by who allows people to bitch about them. By bitching about Whites they are showing that Whites are the boss, and when Whites bitch about Jews then Jews are the boss.
> 
> It's a Progressive Racial Hierarchy.



I don't think whites are allowed to bitch about Jews.


----------



## Lensherr (Jul 2, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> That's kind of the weird thing about Americans though. all 4 of my grandparents came from the same non-america country and you would never know it by talking to any of their descendants. They assimilated quietly and with great difficulty into white culture despite: 1- not being white and 2 -  living in economically depressed region where, at least by percentage of people white was not the dominate race. I don't have any of their "specific traditions" now any more than I would have had if my grandparents had been dragged here in chains. I got parented and educated to have the same bland yet pleasant and polite white culture as most people with nothing more "specific" than my middle name.
> Maybe that's the rub? the deracinated feelings that current year whites have plus the bizarre restrictions on being proud of any small scraps of identity they still cling to.


There's definitely less push now for immigrants to assimilate in white countries than there was before. Just look at the Muslim communities in Europe and how they seem to exist in their own separate nations within nations. Victor Davis Hanson points out in this video how immigration to America worked in the past vs. how it's being advocated for today, and comes to the conclusion that having a controlled number of immigrants per year coming from a diverse source of countries mixed with a policy of assimilation is the key to it being maximally beneficial for both the immigrants and the host country:


----------



## Ashy the Angel (Jul 3, 2019)

Anybody who unironically whines about not being able to freely express White pride at least in America is ignoring that whiteness as a concept was literally invented in order to create a convenient class hierarchy where one group would be able to have power over the other. At its inception whiteness was not some benevolent means of classification. It was created purposefully to oppress whoever needed to be oppressed purely for economic and social reasons, hence why the Irish weren't considered white for many years in America. The classification is kept purposefully vague in order to expand or shrink as necessary. If you ask three different white nationalists who classifies as "white" you'll get three different answers.

Nobody gives a shit if you have German pride, Irish Pride, Italian pride, etc. But white pride as a concept is irrevocably linked with ideas like slavery, colonialism, and the hardcore boner white nationalists have for creating white ethnostates through the displacement and/or murder of non-whites. Things like black pride don't carry that same stigma because the history of black people has a huge 400 year hole in it called the Atlantic slave trade that Europeans don't have, at least not to such a great extent. 

There's also this flawed notion that other ethnic groups in America advocating for their own interests is something that will explicitly harm whites. Most non-white people I know just want to live their lives same as anyone else. What are these "interests" that are so antithetical to America? What does the average black, hispanic, asian or native person want that would hurt white Americans? On the flip side, anytime "white interests" are brought up it seems to always include reducing the number of nonwhites in the country through nonviolent or violent means. If "white interests" didn't so often coincide with removing, enslaving or murdering anyone darker than a scoop of vanilla ice-cream it wouldn't carry such a stigma. You have to remove all context and blank out large swaths of history to be even able to make this argument. 

When people partake and promote "white culture" they are essentially creating a link between disparate things for purely superficial purposes, whether it be a neo-nazi seeking to LARP as a Norse god or a pimply twitter fash account using a Greek statue for a profile pic. When you have an identity that exists purely for political purposes and was used to subjugate the cultures that now grow and outnumber yours it will be hard for the average person to find pity, even a white guy. When you choose to identify with and LARP as a group that carved up the modern world and contributed directly to the very conditions that are now causing non-whites to flock to "your" country, any sob story you pull about not being able to celebrate your identity is diminished greatly. This is why black pride isn't treated like white pride is. When your ancestors decided to create a classification out of thin air just because they didn't want to pick their own cotton you got put in the hole and you'll be digging yourself out for the next few hundred years.

The truth is...the game was rigged from the start.


----------



## Poiseon (Jul 3, 2019)

Ashy the Angel said:


> Anybody who unironically whines about not being able to freely express White pride at least in America is ignoring that whiteness as a concept was literally invented in order to create a convenient class hierarchy where one group would be able to have power over the other. At its inception whiteness was not some benevolent means of classification. It was created purposefully to oppress whoever needed to be oppressed purely for economic and social reasons, hence why the Irish weren't considered white for many years in America. The classification is kept purposefully vague in order to expand or shrink as necessary. If you ask three different white nationalists who classifies as "white" you'll get three different answers.
> 
> Nobody gives a shit if you have German pride, Irish Pride, Italian pride, etc. But white pride as a concept is irrevocably linked with ideas like slavery, colonialism, and the hardcore boner white nationalists have for creating white ethnostates through the displacement and/or murder of non-whites. Things like black pride don't carry that same stigma because the history of black people has a huge 400 year hole in it called the Atlantic slave trade that Europeans don't have, at least not to such a great extent.
> 
> ...


You're not @Ron /pol/ 

You're troll posts are too long, too detailed, and so over the top re-tarded that no one finds it funny. Stop trying so hard.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Jul 3, 2019)

Ashy the Angel said:


> whiteness as a concept was literally invented in order to create a convenient class hierarchy where one group would be able to have power over the other








Ashy the Angel said:


> What does the average black, hispanic, asian or native person want that would hurt white Americans?



In order:

1. Gibsmedats
2. Give us back our land, white devil
3. Asians hurt white Americans (and Canadians and Australians) with direct actions, not shitty gay crying
4. Gib reparations for the injun tribes you slaughtered 200 years ago



Ashy the Angel said:


> But white pride as a concept is irrevocably linked with ideas like slavery, colonialism, and the hardcore boner white nationalists have for creating white ethnostates through the displacement and/or murder of non-whites.



Yes only white racists can be openly supporting of genocide for other races that aren't their skin color. That's why you never ever ever hear of blacks or mexicans talking wistfully about the days when white people will finally go extinct or when they can finally become numerically superior and will be able to start oppressing whites the way they feel they're being oppressed now.

The only thing "irrevocably linking" white pride to that, while not linking "black pride" or "hispanic pride" to those things is spin and propaganda and which parts you want to highlight.



Ashy the Angel said:


> anytime "white interests" are brought up it seems to always include reducing the number of nonwhites in the country through nonviolent or violent means.



Why is it OK for nonwhites to want to increase the number of nonwhites in the country through nonviolent (or violent, sometimes) means?


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Jul 3, 2019)

Poiseon said:


> You're not @Ron /pol/
> 
> You're troll posts are too long, too detailed, and so over the top re-tarded that no one finds it funny. Stop trying so hard.


He's trolling?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Racial pride is retarded full stop, and this goes for every shade of the "human rainbow"

You derive pride from what you do, not from what you are.  You didn't achieve anything from your race, your orientation, your sex or any other inborn and immutable characteristic.  It's also really stupid to stand on the achievements of others that happened to share your immutable characteristics and trumpet about how proud you are of the immutable characteristic that links you to those people and not how proud you are of those people themselves and what they did.

Me, I'm pretty fucking proud of a lot of people in America's past, some one kind of person, some another.  I'm not going to wear what they did as some kind of badge of pride based on my shared sex or race with them or whatever, but I'm gonna give _them_ props.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and black folks? Tell me more about how proud you are at topping the leaderboards on STD rates, violent crime convictions, and WSHH videos.  Y'all love to trumpet about the greatness of people like MLK Jr. or Carver or (pick one, there's a few they like to brag about depending on who you ask) while you proceed to ensure that there will never be another person that great to rise from your ranks again with your crabs-in-a-bucket shit.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> You derive pride from what you do, not from what you are.  You didn't achieve anything from your race, your orientation, your sex or any other inborn and immutable characteristic.  It's also really stupid to stand on the achievements of others that happened to share your immutable characteristics and trumpet about how proud you are of the immutable characteristic that links you to those people and not how proud you are of those people themselves and what they did.


What are you talking about?  I enjoy being blamed for literally everything.  I blame the jews for less shit than gets routinely blamed on whypipo.  If I'm gonna be held responsible for all the evil the people in the genetic cluster I happen to be in did, I might as well be proud of the important cool shit they did too, the atom bomb, translating anime, king arthur, and being the so good at everything we conquered the planet.  An individual without anything to look back on or forwards to is just that, an incoherent liberalist.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Vitoze said:


> What are you talking about?  I enjoy being blamed for literally everything.  I blame the jews for less shit than gets routinely blamed on whypipo.  If I'm gonna be held responsible for all the evil the people in the genetic cluster I happen to be in did, I might as well be proud of the important cool shit they did too, the atom bomb, translating anime, king arthur, and being the so good at everything we conquered the planet.  An individual without anything to look back on or forwards to is just that, an incoherent liberalist.


Atom bomb was as much a Jewish invention as it was a white American invention.

In any event, you want to be retarded and take shit that isn't actually yours like a nigger? Cool beans.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Atom bomb was as much a Jewish invention as it was a white American invention.
> 
> In any event, you want to be exceptional and take shit that isn't actually yours like a nigger? Cool beans.


Cool, so I can share something with the international zionist menace.  I didn't think I had any common ground!

What have I taken that isn't mine?  I enjoy being related to the best group of inventors and conquerors the world has ever known.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Vitoze said:


> Cool, so I can share something with the international zionist menace.  I didn't think I had any common ground!
> 
> What have I taken that isn't mine?  I enjoy being related to the best group of inventors and conquerors the world has ever known.


Oh I see you traveled back in time and helped work on Trinity, that explains it.  My mistake!

You stand on the shoulders of many, many giants and think yourself tall.  I'd say that I doubt your descendants will have much to say about you, but let's face it you're probably not going to have any of those.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Oh I see you traveled back in time and helped work on Trinity, that explains it.  My mistake!
> 
> You stand on the shoulders of many, many giants and think yourself tall.  I'd say that I doubt your descendants will have much to say about you, but let's face it you're probably not going to have any of those.


Don't you have liberalistism to spread?  Go be a deracinated individual somehwere where that matters.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Vitoze said:


> Don't you have liberalistism to spread?  Go be a deracinated individual somehwere where that matters.


You're just mad the last people to champion your ideology got flogged so fucking hard their descendants have done nothing but self-flagellate and suck migrant cock for it since.  You suppose Dresden smelled kind of like a barbecue?

Step up again, we'll give you another.  Wonder what bunch of folks straight out of Africa your descendants will fellate after we wrap the next sequel in this series up.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> You're just mad the last people to champion your ideology got flogged so fucking hard their descendants have done nothing but self-flagellate and suck migrant cock for it since.  You suppose Dresden smelled kind of like a barbecue?
> 
> Step up again, we'll give you another.  Wonder what bunch of folks straight out of Africa your descendants will fellate after we wrap the next sequel in this series up.


'muh yahtzees' cry harder nerd.  Don't forget Dresden was bombed by a de facto white supremacist empire, lol.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Vitoze said:


> 'muh yahtzees' cry harder nerd.  Don't forget Dresden was bombed by a de facto white supremacist empire, lol.


He says as he pines for his beloved NSDAP, full of closeted faggots like Goering, whiny bitches like Goebbels, and chronic failures like Hitler.  Imagine being so fucking repulsive that even a bunch of rayciss Muricans decide you need to get purged with fire lol.

I will say though, Germany's definitely less rayciss than us now! Hard to beat Germany's overweening desire to give free shit to Turks and darkies.  Those Krauts don't do anything by halves.  Unless it's waging war, lol, then they get fucking spanked over and over and never fucking learn.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Step up again, we'll give you another.



We?

Aren't you the one here railing on about how people shouldn't be proud of their heritage or whatever. Who is this "we" you speak of, or are you a WW2 veteran who flew over 300 bombing runs over Dresden?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> We?
> 
> Aren't you the one here railing on about how people shouldn't be proud of their heritage or whatever. Who is this "we" you speak of, or are you a WW2 veteran who flew over 300 bombing runs over Dresden?


Oh, I was definitely not that fortunate.  But I'll be very happy to carry on the tradition of flattening dumb fucking Krauts from altitude if the opportunity arises.  Whatever else anyone who flew a bomber sortie over Germany did in their lives, at least they did the world a service in the form of reminding the Germans why they're going to lose every fight they get into from that point on out.  They could get to the pearly gates and St. Peter would say "Well, you did kick some puppies back in the day, but you toasted a bunch of asshole Jerries.  You're in."


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> I was definitely not that fortunate. But I'll be very happy to carry on the tradition of flattening dumb fucking Krauts from altitude if the opportunity arises.





So what you're saying is



Sprig of Parsley said:


> you want to be exceptional and take shit that isn't actually yours like a nigger?


and


Sprig of Parsley said:


> you stand on the shoulders of many, many giants and think yourself tall.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Oh, I was definitely not that fortunate.  But I'll be very happy to carry on the tradition of flattening dumb fucking Krauts from altitude if the opportunity arises.  Whatever else anyone who flew a bomber sortie over Germany did in their lives, at least they did the world a service in the form of reminding the Germans why they're going to lose every fight they get into from that point on out.  They could get to the pearly gates and St. Peter would say "Well, you did kick some puppies back in the day, but you toasted a bunch of asshole Jerries.  You're in."


I will never undertsand the eternal anglo's irrational hatred of Germans; I mean, I can understand why Germans are disliked, but Anglos take their hatred to 11, to the point it feels silly


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

German-tier reading comprehension strikes again.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> You derive pride from what you do, not from what you are. You didn't achieve anything from your race, your orientation, your sex or any other inborn and immutable characteristic. It's also really stupid to stand on the achievements of others that happened to share your immutable characteristics and trumpet about how proud you are of the immutable characteristic that links you to those people and not how proud you are of those people themselves and what they did.



This is only true if you are a completely atomized individualist, like Peterson propagates. He's even gone so far as to infer you should feel guilty about it in one panel discussion.

There's also the falseness that taking pride in it would mean the same thing as claiming personal responsibility for it. That's just a sneaky and false way to make pride in heritage sound bad.

Taking pride in one's heritage doesn't necessarily mean saying: "I did that, I am awesome for doing that", it means saying "my kind did that, it shows what my kind is capable of and I'm going to use it as an ideal to live up to".

There are a lot of different parts of our identity and race and nationality are two parts of those.

-----

Let's put it another way. If my dad is the town drunk, I am going to be ashamed for relating to him and that means I want to choose a different path than he did. If he is a respected scholar, I am going to be proud of him and it means I would want to choose some of the same paths as he chose.

The same goes with larger, non-individualistic persuits; what religious organisation to support, what political party to support, what societal ideas to support. When you atomize everything only to what you personally achieved (and not take pride in for example, a large charity action that you were only a tiny cog in, or a societal idea like free speech or abolishing slavery), then you remain disconnected to the larger things in this world.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> German-tier reading comprehension strikes again.


>Everyone I don't like is German: A child's guide to political discussion


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 3, 2019)

Ashy the Angel said:


> Nobody gives a shit if you have German pride, Irish Pride, Italian pride, etc. But white pride as a concept is irrevocably linked with ideas like slavery, colonialism, and the hardcore boner white nationalists have for creating white ethnostates through the displacement and/or murder of non-whites. Things like black pride don't carry that same stigma because the history of black people has a huge 400 year hole in it called the Atlantic slave trade that Europeans don't have, at least not to such a great extent.



Except if you go to Germany, Ireland, Italy..... then suddenly people do give a shit about those kinds of pride.

It's almost like that the one collective group identity that would have a chance of succesfully uniting the majority in a population is exactly the one that isn't allowed in each western state.

The arguments you use against white pride in the US are similar to the ones used against national pride in European countries. They're a little harder to believe for countries that barely had colonies, but those countries were involved in the second world war, so they get blamed for the holocaust instead (even Poland though they were occupied, lol).


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> This is only true if you are a completely atomized individualist, like Peterson propagates. He's even gone so far as to infer you should feel guilty about it in one panel discussion.
> 
> There's also the falseness that taking pride in it would mean the same thing as claiming personal responsibility for it. That's just a sneaky and false way to make pride in heritage sound bad.
> 
> ...


To approach it from this angle opens two unpleasant doors:
Door 1. "Anyone who's from a historically underachieving demographic just can't help it, the poor dears."  From this door lead paths like "We should prop them up with gibs and headpats" and "We should just scour them from the earth".
Door 2. "You only achieved that because you are from demographic X." Your personal choices are meaningless, you were fated to achieve that by dint of your demographic, and thus it's not even really an achievement.

If I do something worthwhile I'll give props to those who gave me the knowledge that lead me to that thing if applicable, I'll give credit to those who might have helped fund that thing in particular coming to fruition if applicable, but I'm not for a single solitary SECOND going to give anyone else a damn thing more.  If someone else does something worthwhile, I'm not gonna pretend his achievement makes ME a better person just because we share demographic info.  I want nothing to do with that shit.  I want to OWN my success as fully as possible whether it's normal for my demographic or unusual for my demographic.

Atomization of individualism is as FAR away from those potential doors and paths as possible and those are doors I want to distance myself as much as possible from.  I don't WANT your fucking "Our kind does great things".  I'll shitpost day-in day-out to poke fun at some collectivist little Naziboo but I want nothing to do with any form of collectivization that I don't absolutely HAVE to deal with.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> To approach it from this angle opens two unpleasant doors:
> Door 1. "Anyone who's from a historically underachieving demographic just can't help it, the poor dears."  From this door lead paths like "We should prop them up with gibs and headpats" and "We should just scour them from the earth".
> Door 2. "You only achieved that because you are from demographic X." Your personal choices are meaningless, you were fated to achieve that by dint of your demographic, and thus it's not even really an achievement.



No, it doesn't. Door 1 is false. It goes back to the drunk/scholar dad example. If you are from an underachieving demographic, you should be ashamed of part of your history and you should seek to make changes. China is a good example that started making economic changes away from their communist ideas that they had adopted and let to stagnation and adopting some free market principles to start to do better. An example of a country that is refusing to make changes is Pakistan in relation to consaguinity; they have the highest rate of consanguinity in the world, shamelessly. After all if it was good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for them. It's causing an ever increase in birth complications.

You should be ashamed of the part of your history that is underachieving and yes, that means that some shame for brutalities can be appropriate as long as you don't let it dominate (like the scholar dad coming home drunk twice and being a bit of an ass). You have to keep things in perspective of course.

Door 2 is a false proposition as well. If I'm from a chinese family that knows the secret of making silk, yes, I only know that because I was born in the right family, but I still had to learn how to make it and guard its secret. The choice to follow in the footsteps still have to be made and the sacrifices and effort to learn to do it. This means the personal choice isn't meaningless, even if you had the advantage of having good parents who passed it on to you.

It really boggles my mind that you would find it unpleasant for people to be connected to previous generations and groups larger than 1.



> If I do something worthwhile I'll give props to those who gave me the knowledge that lead me to that thing if applicable, I'll give credit to those who might have helped fund that thing in particular coming to fruition if applicable, but I'm not for a single solitary SECOND going to give anyone else a damn thing more.  If someone else does something worthwhile, I'm not gonna pretend his achievement makes ME a better person just because we share demographic info.  I want nothing to do with that shit.  I want to OWN my success as fully as possible whether it's normal for my demographic or unusual for my demographic.
> 
> Atomization of individualism is as FAR away from those potential doors and paths as possible and those are doors I want to distance myself as much as possible from.  I don't WANT your fucking "Our kind does great things".  I'll shitpost day-in day-out to poke fun at some collectivist little Naziboo but I want nothing to do with any form of collectivization that I don't absolutely HAVE to deal with.



I follow aristotle's thinking in the sense that a virtue is a balance between two things and the extremes are vices. If you want to go as far as possible into individualism I consider that as much as a threat as someone that wants to go as far into collectivization as possible. Why do you presume there would be no possibility of balance between the two?

Have you never experienced being part of a group effort? Of being responsible for something collectively, even if it's a group of 5 or 6, where you can't say "I OWN THIS", but only "WE DID THIS"?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> No, it doesn't. Door 1 is false. It goes back to the drunk/scholar dad example. If you are from an underachieving demographic, you should be ashamed of part of your history and you should seek to make changes. China is a good example that started making economic changes away from their communist ideas that they had adopted and let to stagnation and adopting some free market principles to start to do better. An example of a country that is refusing to make changes is Pakistan in relation to consaguinity; they have the highest rate of consanguinity in the world, shamelessly. After all if it was good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for them. It's causing an ever increase in birth complications.
> 
> You should be ashamed of the part of your history that is underachieving and yes, that means that some shame for brutalities can be appropriate as long as you don't let it dominate (like the scholar dad coming home drunk twice and being a bit of an ass). You have to keep things in perspective of course.
> 
> ...



Because it keeps leading back to those doors.  It keeps fucking happening, and when it does I want to pick up that cudgel of collectivism and beat them all about the head with it and ask them if they still love that shit when it's hurting them in particular.



Lemmingwise said:


> I follow aristotle's thinking in the sense that a virtue is a balance between two things and the extremes are vices. If you want to go as far as possible into individualism I consider that as much as a threat as someone that wants to go as far into collectivization as possible. Why do you presume there would be no possibility of balance between the two?
> 
> Have you never experienced being part of a group effort? Of being responsible for something collectively, even if it's a group of 5 or 6, where you can't say "I OWN THIS", but only "WE DID THIS"?



Let's just say group projects of pretty much any size are magnets for do-nothings and free-riders who will happily drag other members under given the opportunity, rather than put in anything of worth themselves.  I loathe working with people for this reason.  I also want to reduce the variables in the equation to a bare fucking minimum to ensure that when problems arise I can determine their nature and correct course if necessary.  I don't trust any given Tom, Dick or Harry to A. not fuck up and B. not obfuscate their fuck-ups in order to save face.  I have seen it happen and I'm sick of dealing with it in situations where it's not ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Group efforts are great right up until the point they turn into quagmires of nepotism/favoritism, bullshitting and free-riding.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Because it keeps leading back to those doors. It keeps fucking happening, and when it does I want to pick up that cudgel of collectivism and beat them all about the head with it and ask them if they still love that shit when it's hurting them in particular.



You assert it again, without a why. Tell me what was wrong with my examples or prove why it can only lead to exactly those doors.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 3, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> You assert it again, without a why. Tell me what was wrong with my examples or prove why it can only lead to exactly those doors.


give him a break he mistook the local heer avatar guy for an SS larper.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> You assert it again, without a why. Tell me what was wrong with my examples or prove why it can only lead to exactly those doors.


I've never NOT seen it lead to those doors.  Everything from arguments that the leaps and bounds made by what is now referred to collectively as The West in everything from medicine to technology to philosophy etc. only came about because the White Europeans pilfered every other culture on the face of the planet and gave Europe an unfair leg up, to arguments that this same pilfering is why Africans are so stunted in every conceivable way and unironic "THEY WUZ KANGS" shit being bandied about for every single melanin-enriched individual ever.  That kind of shit is how white guilt is fostered, how money from The West is being funneled into pits in the third world to enrich warlords and kingpins, how any sort of great stride forward by a person who happens to have a lighter complexion is being demeaned as unimportant or actively harmful/stolen from a more deserving Pee Oh See, how the works of the masters are being derided as "more shit dead white men wrote".

Collectivism is both poison and keeps becoming even more potent poison, time and time again.  "Maybe just a little poison won't hurt, maybe just a drop."


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> I've never NOT seen it lead to those doors.  Everything from arguments that the leaps and bounds made by what is now referred to collectively as The West in everything from medicine to technology to philosophy etc. only came about because the White Europeans pilfered every other culture on the face of the planet and gave Europe an unfair leg up, to arguments that this same pilfering is why Africans are so stunted in every conceivable way and unironic "THEY WUZ KANGS" shit being bandied about for every single melanin-enriched individual ever.  That kind of shit is how white guilt is fostered, how money from The West is being funneled into pits in the third world to enrich warlords and kingpins, how any sort of great stride forward by a person who happens to have a lighter complexion is being demeaned as unimportant or actively harmful/stolen from a more deserving Pee Oh See, how the works of the masters are being derided as "more shit dead white men wrote".
> 
> Collectivism is both poison and keeps becoming even more potent poison, time and time again.  "Maybe just a little poison won't hurt, maybe just a drop."


Uh. I hate to break this to you, but it was Democracy and the Enlightenment that opened this door to overthrowing the Ancien Regimes, which in turn paved the way for Communism. Capitalism and Communism are just two sides of the same materialist coin.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> I've never NOT seen it lead to those doors.



I've read your post three times but there doesn't seem to be any reasoning or agument beyond this sentence. Simply more assertion. I suppose if you approach everything highly atomized it would make sense to say  "I have only ever seen it this way". From a highly individualistic perspective, that would be sufficient evidence. You know it, so it must be true. You've seen it.

Without groups, including the group that built the internet, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation in the first place. The amount of money and effort put into that (including government funding; another type of collective), it would never have been possible. Should we be ashamed of using the internet, of standing on the shoulders of gians? I think that alone shows that not all collectivism is poison.

Maybe, and I say this with empathy and with full understanding that it would be a hard place to be, the reason why you don't like to work in groups is because you don't have the skills to keep other accountable/effective and end up being taken advantage of. That is then enlarged and projected onto all group/collective efforts. And I can see why it's threatening. You can be the most skilled, capable and responsible individual, but a group of average joes will be able to take you down; politically, professionally, physically and in other arena's too. Is it possible that your personal bad experiences with being part of group efforts (and perhaps I was wrong in blaming your people skills, it might as well be being surrounded by vultures) has soured you towards the ideas of groups a good avenue to do good things and to do so effectively?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jul 3, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> Uh. I hate to break this to you, but it was Democracy and the Enlightenment that opened this door to overthrowing the Ancien Regimes, which in turn paved the way for Communism. Capitalism and Communism are just two sides of the same materialist coin.


My beef is with collectivism, not materialism.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> My beef is with collectivism, not materialism.


Good luck with the political norms of human societies prior to the enlightenment then, I suppose.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jul 3, 2019)

I'd say the crucial reason for the apparent asymmetry has very little to do with the acceptability of ethnic pride and solidarity in and of itself, and much more to do with it's context and authenticity.

When minority groups such as blacks, LGBTs, Native Americans, etc, come together to express black pride, gay pride, and Native American pride respectively, they're generally doing so as a display of collective solidarity against a historical backdrop of oppression. They're not doing it to celebrate their people's achievements in some belligerent display of ethnic chauvinism, they're doing it to mark their people's historical struggle for justice and humanity. Whether you happen to approve of this sort of thing or not, the context here is very different to the one in which 'white pride' is typically understood: it lacks the associations with ethnic supremacy or subjugation.

To illustrate this further: when white people come together to engage in the kind of ethnic pride I've elucidated above, no reasonable person has a problem with it (see: Irish pride). Conversely, when minority groups come together to engage in overt displays of xenophobia and supremacism (see: Black Hebrew Israelites), they're typically derided as disreputable bigots. This isn't to say that double standards don't exist, but they're nowhere near as pronounced as some people seem to be making out here.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 3, 2019)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> To illustrate this further: when white people come together to engage in the kind of ethnic pride I've elucidated above, *no reasonable person* has a problem with it (see: Irish pride). Conversely, when minority groups come together to engage in overt displays of xenophobia and supremacism (see: Black Hebrew Israelites), they're typically derided as disreputable bigots. This isn't to say that double standards don't exist, but they're nowhere near as pronounced as some people seem to be making out here.




I get that americans think this, but as soon as that kind of thing happens in europe it's regarded as every bit as problematic. Case in point, when the english defense league did their absolute hardest at keeping neonazi's out, up to including actively barring them from joining protest parades and carrying signs with symbols of garbage bins and swastika's being thrown into them.

This was regarded as every bit as problematic, racist and nazi-like, by press, left-wing politicians, part of the public alike.

When there are these kind of ethnic unity groups that would have a chance of success of uniting people, that's when they're attacked under the assumption that they have genocidal intentions. I think the reason why in america specific ethnicity celebration like irish (assuming that's acceptable in the US as you say), is because there is no risk of uniting them and resist growing levels of multiculturalism.

ps. "No reasonable person" = No true scotsman fallacy.


----------

