Here we say good things about immigrants and non-whites

967

• (edited )

Apparently Derek Black left White nationalism after making friends with some of them, like being a white nationalist and also being friends with non-whites was somehow contradictory.

I don't quite get it, Because I've lived around them my whole life, with mostly good experiences, I don't hate them nor do I wish them harm (though I may say otherwise in times of particular frustration with some of their worse elements), and I see the larger issues as not being unable to be resolved amicably***

***The problem being that we are unable to make our case to them, what we want, why we want it, and how it could be better for everyone if we got what we wanted, which is political and economic independence, along with an end to the pointless hostilities towards us and the fostering of a sense of compassion for us, or at least realness about the realities of our history and present circumstances.

My position is based on an emotionally removed and rational analysis of the facts, and an more in-depth review of our history and current situation, the path we are taking leads either to the destruction of our people and then everyone else, or the needless outbreak of violence should more peaceful means be shut down, I think the main problem is miscommunication between different perspectives, and misconceptions that have to be dislodged, in both their heads and ours.

I honestly think no group of people are universally "superior" to any other across the board ("different" is a better descriptor, the fact that they survived for so long is a good point in that claim's favor), and I think that most people from all groups are decent (at least trying to be good and do what they think is best for everyone), and most of the damage they do is done out of ignorance, rather than malice, I do realize that there are bad actors in every group, and more in some groups than others (for example, the fact that psychopathic traits are more common in black people and jewish people than in white people or asian people), and that in at least some groups the worst have risen up into the roles that to other groups represent their group as a whole (but shouldn't).

The thing we aim for is not about hating or hurting people who are outside your tribe, but about loving and protecting the people within your tribe, and I think we could find a way to ensure the latter without resorting to the former, the issue is that other groups think we want to hurt or oppress them and they think the same as us, hyperbolic expressions of frustration or anger is interpreted as an accurate description of one side's honestly held inner opinions.

Imagine a deck of cards, jokers are removed, assign a unique value from one to thirteen to each of the cards of each suit (ace is one, deuce is two, jack is eleven, queen is twelve, king is thirteen), then shuffle the whole deck, and deal them into four smaller decks, count up the total values of each suit in each deck, and you will find that every suit is not equally represented, a pretty shitty magic trick, but intended to illustrate the following point on inequality, each suit is equal to one another in total, but when sorted into four decks, a deck for each suit, some suits come out on top of others in each deck.

If the suits were alive, like in "alice in wonderland" they could look at this inequality and assume it's due to some form of discrimination, rather than random chance, because they are each distinct from the other suits, and they would naturally assume that if they were being done wrongly by, that the one doing them dirty is the suit with the best representation, they have no clue about the "hand of god/nature" dealing the decks.

Since their deck is analogous to their country here, they would not learn anything about the other decks, where different suits were privileged or oppressed, they'd only learn about the history of their own deck, and perhaps, they might form a historical narrative based on the known history of this one quarter of the world that explains why they wound up with the lowest sum to their names, and of course this history is molded to explain things in such a way, things that do not fit are simply forgotten about and thrown out, anyone who brings the inconsistencies up are labelled as evil for apologizing for the better endowed in an unequal society.

A similar thing is being done with Black Lives Matter, they say slavery, colonialism, and caste systems (which is what the worst depictions of "Jim Crow" are most accurately described as) were to blame for their problems, but if that was the case, then the blacks or Arabs in Africa, who were far more prolific slave owners and colonialist conquerors/occupiers, would be the richest in the world, considering the comparable size of their slavery industries, and Whites would be falling behind, due to the date of our people's enslavement and the other factors also all being worse than the trans-atlantic slave trade, you have to ignore large sections of history to make that work, and they do, not only that, but they fail to realize the full extent of the truths regarding the history they do pay attention to, missing out on the details that would run counter to their narrative.

Anyways, this thought experiment is a situation in which all four suits are objectively equal on the whole, differing only among individuals, and not between groups as a whole, human groups are different, in that they are not equal as groups on a whole, nor are they equal as individuals, so imagine things getting even more messy than the example of the deck of cards.

Factor in the certainty that every group has done something terrible to every other, giving any group whose not doing well a chance to blame their failings on the actions of another more successful group..

Just as africans can complain about white colonization, whites can complain about the role of blacks in the fall of early civilizations like egypt, which is turn could be blamed on blacks being taken as slaves, which in turn can be blamed on blacks raiding white settlements.

Just as whites can complain about jewish subversion and domination, jews can complain about being forced to live among whites due to being driven out of their homelands by whites, who they in turn were attacked by whites for their militaristic aggression against them in the past.

You can go back to the age of the neanderthals, denisovians, cro-magnons, and early sapiens, and how they warred with each other and among themselves, even something like slavery or genocide is something at least as old as the neolithic period, war was with us from before we were even fully human.

The truth is that every group were done hard by, for every conquistador who ended up being responsible for the dying out of some peaceful amerindian tribe, there was another warlike amerindian tribe who attacked peaceful colonial settlers and taking their children as slaves.

To blame a conspiracy of one race for the issues of another is a major claim that requires evidence behind it, and it must be a better explaination of the circumstances than alternative hypotheses, this is what separates the idea of a White supremacist conspiracy from the Jewish question.

First of all the former makes a larger claim that all Whites are complicit, whether they intend to be or not, by the very virtue of their nature as White people.

While the latter doesn't claim all Jews are in on it, and accepts the fact that merely being Jewish does not make one complicit (although deception is a double-edged sword in that if your group uses it, it makes it hard for those of your group who aren't in league with you difficult to tell apart from those who are).

Second, there is evidence that differences in the distribution of genes are responsible for differences in political/economic/societal/cultural/scientific/etc. performance between Whites and Blacks/Browns.

While in the latter, genetic distributions are not a satisfactory answer for disparities between Whites and Jews, especially since the hostility of various powerful/influential Jews towards Whites, and such Jews actively conspiring against Whites, is well-established.

I think my new perspective is well described as me tackling conflicts rather than people, if we kill the threats to our race, we do not need to kill the people who bear the threats to our race, anyone can get along with anyone else so long as neither is causing problems for the other.

We all want freedom and security, a good place to draw the line, at least on a personal/individual level, is defined by the Non-Aggression Principle, where you can do anything you like unless it directly affects the person or property of someone else, in which case, the interaction must be voluntary to be permitted, this, combined with "do unto other as they have done unto you" forms the basic foundation of all morality law throughout history.

Apparently Derek Black left White nationalism after making friends with some of them, like being a white nationalist and also being friends with non-whites was somehow contradictory. I don't quite get it, Because I've lived around them my whole life, with mostly good experiences, I don't hate them nor do I wish them harm (though I may say otherwise in times of particular frustration with some of their worse elements), and I see the larger issues as not being unable to be resolved amicably*** ***The problem being that we are unable to make our case to them, what we want, why we want it, and how it could be better for everyone if we got what we wanted, which is political and economic independence, along with an end to the pointless hostilities towards us and the fostering of a sense of compassion for us, or at least realness about the realities of our history and present circumstances. My position is based on an emotionally removed and rational analysis of the facts, and an more in-depth review of our history and current situation, the path we are taking leads either to the destruction of our people and then everyone else, or the needless outbreak of violence should more peaceful means be shut down, I think the main problem is miscommunication between different perspectives, and misconceptions that have to be dislodged, in both their heads and ours. I honestly think no group of people are universally "superior" to any other across the board ("different" is a better descriptor, the fact that they survived for so long is a good point in that claim's favor), and I think that most people from all groups are decent (at least trying to be good and do what they think is best for everyone), and most of the damage they do is done out of ignorance, rather than malice, I do realize that there are bad actors in every group, and more in some groups than others (for example, the fact that psychopathic traits are more common in black people and jewish people than in white people or asian people), and that in at least some groups the worst have risen up into the roles that to other groups represent their group as a whole (but shouldn't). The thing we aim for is not about hating or hurting people who are outside your tribe, but about loving and protecting the people within your tribe, and I think we could find a way to ensure the latter without resorting to the former, the issue is that other groups think we want to hurt or oppress them and they think the same as us, hyperbolic expressions of frustration or anger is interpreted as an accurate description of one side's honestly held inner opinions. --- Imagine a deck of cards, jokers are removed, assign a unique value from one to thirteen to each of the cards of each suit (ace is one, deuce is two, jack is eleven, queen is twelve, king is thirteen), then shuffle the whole deck, and deal them into four smaller decks, count up the total values of each suit in each deck, and you will find that every suit is not equally represented, a pretty shitty magic trick, but intended to illustrate the following point on inequality, each suit is equal to one another in total, but when sorted into four decks, a deck for each suit, some suits come out on top of others in each deck. If the suits were alive, like in "alice in wonderland" they could look at this inequality and assume it's due to some form of discrimination, rather than random chance, because they are each distinct from the other suits, and they would naturally assume that if they were being done wrongly by, that the one doing them dirty is the suit with the best representation, they have no clue about the "hand of god/nature" dealing the decks. Since their deck is analogous to their country here, they would not learn anything about the other decks, where different suits were privileged or oppressed, they'd only learn about the history of their own deck, and perhaps, they might form a historical narrative based on the known history of this one quarter of the world that explains why they wound up with the lowest sum to their names, and of course this history is molded to explain things in such a way, things that do not fit are simply forgotten about and thrown out, anyone who brings the inconsistencies up are labelled as evil for apologizing for the better endowed in an unequal society. A similar thing is being done with Black Lives Matter, they say slavery, colonialism, and caste systems (which is what the worst depictions of "Jim Crow" are most accurately described as) were to blame for their problems, but if that was the case, then the blacks or Arabs in Africa, who were far more prolific slave owners and colonialist conquerors/occupiers, would be the richest in the world, considering the comparable size of their slavery industries, and Whites would be falling behind, due to the date of our people's enslavement and the other factors also all being worse than the trans-atlantic slave trade, you have to ignore large sections of history to make that work, and they do, not only that, but they fail to realize the full extent of the truths regarding the history they do pay attention to, missing out on the details that would run counter to their narrative. --- Anyways, this thought experiment is a situation in which all four suits are objectively equal on the whole, differing only among individuals, and not between groups as a whole, human groups are different, in that they are not equal as groups on a whole, nor are they equal as individuals, so imagine things getting even more messy than the example of the deck of cards. Factor in the certainty that every group has done something terrible to every other, giving any group whose not doing well a chance to blame their failings on the actions of another more successful group.. Just as africans can complain about white colonization, whites can complain about the role of blacks in the fall of early civilizations like egypt, which is turn could be blamed on blacks being taken as slaves, which in turn can be blamed on blacks raiding white settlements. Just as whites can complain about jewish subversion and domination, jews can complain about being forced to live among whites due to being driven out of their homelands by whites, who they in turn were attacked by whites for their militaristic aggression against them in the past. You can go back to the age of the neanderthals, denisovians, cro-magnons, and early sapiens, and how they warred with each other and among themselves, even something like slavery or genocide is something at least as old as the neolithic period, war was with us from before we were even fully human. The truth is that every group were done hard by, for every conquistador who ended up being responsible for the dying out of some peaceful amerindian tribe, there was another warlike amerindian tribe who attacked peaceful colonial settlers and taking their children as slaves. To blame a conspiracy of one race for the issues of another is a major claim that requires evidence behind it, and it must be a better explaination of the circumstances than alternative hypotheses, this is what separates the idea of a White supremacist conspiracy from the Jewish question. First of all the former makes a larger claim that all Whites are complicit, whether they intend to be or not, by the very virtue of their nature as White people. While the latter doesn't claim all Jews are in on it, and accepts the fact that merely being Jewish does not make one complicit (although deception is a double-edged sword in that if your group uses it, it makes it hard for those of your group who aren't in league with you difficult to tell apart from those who are). Second, there is evidence that differences in the distribution of genes are responsible for differences in political/economic/societal/cultural/scientific/etc. performance between Whites and Blacks/Browns. While in the latter, genetic distributions are not a satisfactory answer for disparities between Whites and Jews, especially since the hostility of various powerful/influential Jews towards Whites, and such Jews actively conspiring against Whites, is well-established. I think my new perspective is well described as me tackling conflicts rather than people, if we kill the threats to our race, we do not need to kill the people who bear the threats to our race, anyone can get along with anyone else so long as neither is causing problems for the other. We all want freedom and security, a good place to draw the line, at least on a personal/individual level, is defined by the Non-Aggression Principle, where you can do anything you like unless it directly affects the person or property of someone else, in which case, the interaction must be voluntary to be permitted, this, combined with "do unto other as they have done unto you" forms the basic foundation of all morality law throughout history.

(post is archived)