The west was built on racism. It's time [white people] faced that

[aviet]

Yesterday The Guardian memed out a video:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jan/18/the-west-was-built-on-racism-its-time-we-faced-that-video

in which a sociology professor asserts that the developments of The West were essentially only realised through the exploitation of non-whites, refutes the scientific classification of races while presumably having no problem with classification of flora an fauna, and suggests that the problems of the global south are the result of the deliberate machinations of The West.

The Guardian has been increasingly pushing these types of narratives, including that 'white people are rather awful' and the need for immigration to be used to change the character of the United States. But if you scroll down to the comments and order by recommendations (most up votes), as is usually the case, you will find a slew of comments rejecting these various non-realities. Yet they continue to pump out this unpopular material.

Question: Given that these memes are routinely rejected by The Guardians' predominantly leftist audience, do you think their projection actually serves more to discredit them and associated movements and ideologies?

From what I have seen these memes are to a great extent confined to professors who are completely removed from market forces (and thus can live in a fantasy) and their hanger-on students. Do you see this anti-reality academic movement posing a real threat to the current level of civilisation?

My take is that the dissemination of these fictional guilt-trips is a boon. For many years I was latently of the mind that Europeans were oppressors who were responsible for the current state of the third world. This was not a strongly held conviction, but rather the result of an amalgam of input from film, music, news, cartoons etc., creating the general smorgasbord of uniformed, loosely held opinions that most people never question. It was only in around 2011 when I started to see mentally unstable social justice warriors career around dispensing guilt that I looked into European colonisation and found that the reality was very different from what I had been led to believe.

[Goldenages]

 

Do you see this anti-reality academic movement posing a real threat to the current level of civilisation?

 

 

I think it does. During the last years, if not decades, a default mindset of "we are guilty whatever happens" was created.

 

So politicians can claim really strange things:  Islamists hate us, because we are ugly capitalists. If we just shared our wealth, they will stop the terror.

If there is a hunger crisis somewhere in Afrika, its our guilt because the CO2 led to drought.

We must not eat so much meat, cause that causes an increase in CO2. Vegetarian, or even Vegan is the hype today.

We must not drive car, because of CO2.

Just to name a few - in any case the state justifies more and more intervention.

 

But I guess the pendulum swings back already.

 

regards

Andi

[Will Torbald]

If the solution is more socialism, you know why they're doing it. The general population will be lullabied into their own demise with cultural marxism in exchange for political marxism.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yesterday The Guardian memed out a video:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jan/18/the-west-was-built-on-racism-its-time-we-faced-that-video

 

in which a sociology professor asserts that the developments of The West were essentially only realised through the exploitation of non-whites, refutes the scientific classification of races while presumably having no problem with classification of flora an fauna, and suggests that the problems of the global south are the result of the deliberate machinations of The West.

 

The Guardian has been increasingly pushing these types of narratives, including that 'white people are rather awful' and the need for immigration to be used to change the character of the United States. But if you scroll down to the comments and order by recommendations (most up votes), as is usually the case, you will find a slew of comments rejecting these various non-realities. Yet they continue to pump out this unpopular material.

 

Question: Given that these memes are routinely rejected by The Guardians' predominantly leftist audience, do you think their projection actually serves more to discredit them and associated movements and ideologies?

 

From what I have seen these memes are to a great extent confined to professors who are completely removed from market forces (and thus can live in a fantasy) and their hanger-on students. Do you see this anti-reality academic movement posing a real threat to the current level of civilisation?

 

My take is that the dissemination of these fictional guilt-trips is a boon. For many years I was latently of the mind that Europeans were oppressors who were responsible for the current state of the third world. This was not a strongly held conviction, but rather the result of an amalgam of input from film, music, news, cartoons etc., creating the general smorgasbord of uniformed, loosely held opinions that most people never question. It was only in around 2011 when I started to see mentally unstable social justice warriors career around dispensing guilt that I looked into European colonisation and found that the reality was very different from what I had been led to believe.

 

Of course it's a threat, it's cutting into our identity as White Westerners. Identity is the power house of human behaviour, and undercutting that is a great way to conquer someone. Make them feel racist, wormy, ashamed, afraid to look any Coloured people in the eye, afraid to use the subway system, afraid to talk about the oppressive, anti-White atmosphere that is descending like a nauseating smog onto our countries.

 

The video is true and ridiculous simultaneously:

 

True because the political economy of the West, as directed by the essential type of the London-Wall Street axis, has, in various forms throughout modern history, been responsible for the controlled take-down of attempts at opposing its system of usurious monetarism. The good news is this is not intrinsic to the West and, as a parasitical entity, can be shrugged off and replaced with the American System of political economy based on national sovereignty and sound money.

 

Ridiculous because if Whites are so powerful, why are they letting the Coloureds pour in and turn their country upside down? Why are they melting before all opposition culturally? The Whites must not be so powerful after all, but instead must merely be the residual “hicks” from the old racism bottle.

 

What is promising is the possibility of the Left overplaying their hand by using the word “racism,” “racism,” “racism” over and over again, applied to the tiniest things—

 

“I think Daffy Duck is racist! He's Black but he's coded for White!”

“White Zombie is a racist name for a band!”

“Casting for period pieces set in 1830s England is racist!”

“The Wizard of Id has a huge White nose, that's racist!”

 

As Anita Sarkeesian has taught us, “everything is racist”. Is it? Then I suppose racism—preferring the company of one's own kind, in one's country, in one's clubs, in one's newspapers, and in one's matrimonial bed and in the faces of one's children--is natural and normal and good. No need to be rude, but get real.  

[DaveR]

Societies are built on tribalism, perhaps. 

 

Given white europeans were 'stealing' the land of other europeans for the 1000 years before (western) europeans started 'stealing' non-europeans lands, if anything not engaging in colonialism would be racist, if racism is treating others different on a racial basis. Europeans were treating non-europeans exactly as they had treated other europeans. 

 

The Transatlantic slave trade itself was neither 'new' nor noteworthy. The main difference seems to be Europeans did something productive and useful with their slaves, whereas the ottomans and Arabs seemed to use them mostly for pleasure or entertainment, then discard them. 

 

Given the initial act of enslavement seems to have been done by other africans (as molyneux has said, going into the african jungle would have been asking for death by disease for europeans) and slaves both pre-dated and superceded european adventures into africa, it seems to me it is actually the progeny of slaves in the US should be paying white americans reparations. Their ancestors got emancipated in the 1870s. Slavery in parts of Africa went on a good 100 years later than that. In effect, being transported to the US as a slave may well have saved another 4 or 5 generations of any given bloodline from further bondage. Had white americans operated plantations within african kingdoms rather than in the Americas, they may have been able to get another century worth of value from slaves.

[Rventurelli]

Yesterday The Guardian memed out a video:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jan/18/the-west-was-built-on-racism-its-time-we-faced-that-video

 

in which a sociology professor asserts that the developments of The West were essentially only realised through the exploitation of non-whites, refutes the scientific classification of races while presumably having no problem with classification of flora an fauna, and suggests that the problems of the global south are the result of the deliberate machinations of The West.

 

The Guardian has been increasingly pushing these types of narratives, including that 'white people are rather awful' and the need for immigration to be used to change the character of the United States. But if you scroll down to the comments and order by recommendations (most up votes), as is usually the case, you will find a slew of comments rejecting these various non-realities. Yet they continue to pump out this unpopular material.

 

Question: Given that these memes are routinely rejected by The Guardians' predominantly leftist audience, do you think their projection actually serves more to discredit them and associated movements and ideologies?

 

From what I have seen these memes are to a great extent confined to professors who are completely removed from market forces (and thus can live in a fantasy) and their hanger-on students. Do you see this anti-reality academic movement posing a real threat to the current level of civilisation?

 

My take is that the dissemination of these fictional guilt-trips is a boon. For many years I was latently of the mind that Europeans were oppressors who were responsible for the current state of the third world. This was not a strongly held conviction, but rather the result of an amalgam of input from film, music, news, cartoons etc., creating the general smorgasbord of uniformed, loosely held opinions that most people never question. It was only in around 2011 when I started to see mentally unstable social justice warriors career around dispensing guilt that I looked into European colonisation and found that the reality was very different from what I had been led to believe.

As Richard Spencer said in the NPI Conference of 2015 -- we won the "troll wars". My explanation for that is a generational divide and balkanization of the media: let us think a little bit of the readers of the Guardian and break them down by generations:

 

The Silent Generation and few from the Greatest Generation that are still alive most likely read the Guardian in printed format[1] and will probably be old left types, the old left is class based more than anything else, remember, Karl Marx said the weaker races would perish in the revolutionary holocaust.

 

Baby Boomers read newspapers and also look at the news online, usually only big, mainstream ones, but they are much less likely to look at the commentary sections and even less likely to reply to them. They do not like texting, preferring to call people, texting only became a thing when they were already over 35. They tend to be a mix of new left and old left, did not grow up experiencing "diversity" and got it very easy as far as economics go. They have the highest incomes of any generations and were not drafted to any major wars, at most the tail end of Vietnam, and for that only the older boomers. They have the arrogance of not needing to prove anything to anyone and also this thing about being much less likely to read comment sections and being very unlikely to respond.

 

Millennials and Generation Xers in America (Generation Xers in Western Europe got their infancy at least without diversity) were the ones to experience "diversity", to be bullied and attacked at school, to see how on average the non-whites are simply not as bright. They were also the first ones to inherit a wrecked economy. Generation Xers, usually the most forgotten generation (those born between 1966 and 1983) were already in a situation where industry was moving very rapidly to Third World countries and getting a good paying job without going to college was hard. Gen Xers might have been able to land at good jobs with college degrees, because those were not as common at the time and the student debts were much lower, however, they still earn significantly less than boomers did at their age when you take inflation in consideration. Millennials on the other hand, they inherited the full mess. They earn much less and got harvested the fruits of "diversity" ever since they were born. Both of these generations are angry for getting the short end of the stick and are the ones who consume most of their news online and comment on those. Almost none of them read newspapers and many do not have cable news. They might not be proportionally the biggest readers of The Guardian or whatever, but they are the ones who comment, and the ones who experience the reality of today.

 

We Millennials and Generation Xers (I am a Millennial) are used to the internet since early, and how fragmented it is. We get our news from many different sources and are not as susceptible to mainstream media because they already had lost the monopoly by the time we came of age and what they said already did not reflect what our eyes saw. Also, many of us grew up immersed in video games and/or watching watching the movies we wanted and looking at very specific TV series that could never have the same cultural impact that early ones had due to the enormous number of options.

 

Let us take an example of how things used to be: Silents and Boomers grew up in a time that television had three or four channels at most. When the Beatles appeared in the Ed Sullivan show for the first time, almost 50 percent of the American televisions were tuned watching them. That is a cultural phenomena that the damn Super Bowl cannot even dream of accomplish, in comparison. There was only one time in television history that the audience was higher than the Beatles afterwards, in 1983[2]. Television, that used to be a unifier, now is so fragmented, that people cannot get the references that other people say and when we do find someone that watches the same shows as us we feel so euphoric that we want to be friends/lovers almost immediately.

 

Sorry for the rambling.

 

[1] http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/newspapers-daily-readership-by-age/

[2] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-reveals-beatles-are-all-time-tv-ratings-champs-58762347.html

[NoTime4marxists]

Of course it's a threat, it's cutting into our identity as White Westerners. Identity is the power house of human behaviour, and undercutting that is a great way to conquer someone. Make them feel racist, wormy, ashamed, afraid to look any Coloured people in the eye, afraid to use the subway system, afraid to talk about the oppressive, anti-White atmosphere that is descending like a nauseating smog onto our countries.

 

The video is true and ridiculous simultaneously:

 

True because the political economy of the West, as directed by the essential type of the London-Wall Street axis, has, in various forms throughout modern history, been responsible for the controlled take-down of attempts at opposing its system of usurious monetarism. The good news is this is not intrinsic to the West and, as a parasitical entity, can be shrugged off and replaced with the American System of political economy based on national sovereignty and sound money.

 

Ridiculous because if Whites are so powerful, why are they letting the Coloureds pour in and turn their country upside down? Why are they melting before all opposition culturally? The Whites must not be so powerful after all, but instead must merely be the residual “hicks” from the old racism bottle.

 

What is promising is the possibility of the Left overplaying their hand by using the word “racism,” “racism,” “racism” over and over again, applied to the tiniest things—

 

“I think Daffy Duck is racist! He's Black but he's coded for White!”

“White Zombie is a racist name for a band!”

“Casting for period pieces set in 1830s England is racist!”

“The Wizard of Id has a huge White nose, that's racist!”

 

As Anita Sarkeesian has taught us, “everything is racist”. Is it? Then I suppose racism—preferring the company of one's own kind, in one's country, in one's clubs, in one's newspapers, and in one's matrimonial bed and in the faces of one's children--is natural and normal and good. No need to be rude, but get real. 

The only ones, keeping racism alive are the virtue signaling Leftists.  They need to keep it alive, in order to justify their existence and paychecks. 

[jimofflorida]

well first...I would think that most on these boards already know the academic system is, well, broken; and that does not mean the students are the issue, it is the professors that have just lost their touch with reality and, well, what academics was suppose to be all about.

 

Regarding white westerners etc. etc.... bah...

Feel free to show me any country that is even remotely as diverse as the good ole USofA...

The idea of rampant Racism in this country is just not true (other than the very very few outliers that you have in any society), but it is the crutch that so many must lean on to justify their behavior.

Feel free to pick any culture that has not at some point used violence against another. Once again nasty reality is just so, well, inconvenient.

I have no idea how you fix that realistically, and that means I have no idea how America survives the next generation or two; scary for my grown children.

[David Ottinger]

These "news" outlets are not in the pursuit of truth.  Instead, they're using language and symbols instrumentally.  Basically, they're marketing an idea that is unpopular in order to normalize its premise.  Repeat something long enough and by people of social status and you begin to manifest that idea.  Hence, the Chinese proverb. "Three men make a tiger."

[Erwin]

ya... we're so racist and evil that everyone is risking death to come live among us. Ok! 

[Grand]

On 1/19/2017 at 3:58 AM, aviet said:

Do you see this anti-reality academic movement posing a real threat to the current level of civilisation?

Not particularly. The thing is, even with how many people they've pulled into their delusions, there are just that many more who refused to be pulled into said delusions. The thing about the ivory tower is that, sure when you look through it's windows everything appears to be rose colored, but that's only from the INSIDE. When viewed from the outside, it is seen from the perspective of the common man, who normally would see it as a gigantic, spectacular and flamboyant thing all to heavily detached from reality. The people who hold these views are INCREDIBLY self destructive and volatile, and this is something that they impart onto their students. This also means that they inevitably end up pushing away anyone who is in any way not completely enthralled by their fluffy rhetoric, as they are following part of a dogma that necessitates them completely removing all dissent. The thing about echo chambers, is that when you force everyone else outside of yours except the other people who like that chamber... All you've done is put all of those people you snubbed into the bigger space. The space outside the chamber is phenomenally larger than the space inside the chamber, and this counts for metaphorical echo chambers as well. The process they've used to indoctrinate students is, ironically enough, effectively immunizing scores more students from their BS. For that reason I don't think there is any real threat from them. I think they can cause some significant harm, like I honestly think they've set civil rights back by several decades already, but I don't see them being any real threat to civilization in the long run.