Talk:White supremacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

White culture and European supremacy[edit]

When white supremacists talk about celebrating their culture (i.e. European culture) they never talk about yodelling or Lederhosen or Beethoven or Shakespeare or Newton or Leibniz or haggis or Bratwurst or Mozart or celebrating religious and cultural festivals or learning traditional dancing, craft making, cooking etc. Why not? All these things/people are, after all, a massive part of European, or "white", culture. What they do talk about is doing violence to other cultures and peoples and how they (Europeans) are inherently superior to all others and everyone else should just let them dominate the world. Or they speak fearfully about hordes of nefarious "others" conspiring to eradicate their way of life. They even complain that certain "others" have too many children while Europeans' birthrate is in free fall. Um, so start a family and produce rug rats of your instead of whining all the time. Europeans (in Europe and in the "new" world) largely eschewed religious, familial and cultural bonds and chose a path of hyper-individualism instead. Now they realize a life of conspicuous consumption, everything-goes hedonism and maximizing one's social status at the expense of others in their community is...a little bit empty and devoid of meaning at best, cruel and debased at worst. But they are foolish and instead of taking responsibility changing their lifestyles they seek to scapegoat others and demonize people and cultures they don't understand. They use secular humanism (e.g. human rights) and liberal capitalism as a proxy for the religion they gave up and seek to spread their philosophy to every corner of the world, often via coercion and brute military force. The Sam Harris's of the world are not much different than the violent racists in that respect. Both believe European culture, i.e. civilization, is objectively superior to any other set of laws and values people might chose to organize their societies around. In some ways liberal supremacists like Harris or leaders Tony Blair, the Bush's, the Clintons etc. are a greater threat to the world than the conspicuous white supremacists because a) there are many of them, and b) they actively spread their philosophy by way of the sword (the U.S. military, NATO, MI6 etc.) It's true...think about it. And the one state they all love and respect - Israel - is an apartheid ethno-supremacist state that is openly racist, practices ethnic cleansing and murder of civilians as national policy and collaborates with the far-right, even neo-Nazi groups. These are objective facts. North America was built on genocide and slavery...and European countries violently colonized massive swathes of Africa, Asia and Australasia and periodically slaughtered each other in the most heinous ways imaginable. The Second World War saw killing on an industrial scale, making it the the most savage conflict in history. It ended less than 75 years ago. Afterwards, the United States took over as chief colonizer and war monger and today endless war has been so normalized that talk of drawing down troops causes outrage and panic among the elites and their media mouthpieces. The truth is...when you cut through the bullshit, distractions and diversions it is Europeans who are the most violent and expansionist people on Earth. The evidence is in plain sight and it is undeniable. Of course, all people and cultures have violent tendencies and human nature dictates that clashes between them are inevitable. But it is the "rational", "humane" and "evidence based" culture of the Europeans that has perfected killing and violence and using these against all people and nations who wish to remain free of western economic and military domination and develop independently of these brutal supremacists. How ironic that many of the loudest and best educated promoters of "reason" and "rational thinking" are victims of every cognitive bias there is. They call out the violence of weaker and less powerful groups, yet fail to see how violently and mercilessly their own culture slaughters and subjugates people around the world. And now that the euphoric effect of mindless hedonism and consumption is wearing off, the citizens of hyper-individualistic Grater Europe are becoming increasingly restive. They feel alienated and lonely and yearn for the bonds of kin, culture and community they sacrificed long ago at the alter of instant-gratification and personal empowerment. On the world stage, other countries and cultures are gaining strength and successfully challenging European domination. So what do the Europeans do? They double down on all the practices and policies that got them into the mess they are in today. No introspection and realistic appraisals of the situation. No dialling back the geopolitical aggression against foreign bogeymen and the ruinous economic policies that are rotting out western society. No, it's more of the same European supremacist fantasies of total domination. Endless warfare (military and economic) abroad and a descent into a Hobbesian war of all-against-all at home while preaching the wonders of the Enlightenment, reason and rational thinking and how the west is best and everything is wonderful la-dee-da-dee-da! Most people who read this won't read to the end, and of those who do a majority will dismiss it as unhinged crazy talk and instantly forget it. Critical thinking, nuance, and learning from history are out...and emotion-driven "narratives", reality avoidance and radical relativism are in. People have trouble differentiating between truth and opinion and the idea that there exists an objective reality independently of ones own beliefs and points-of-view is dismissed as "weird". Even as their society rots from the inside and begins to implode, the Europeans cling to their superiority delusion. Instead of a rational and reasonable assessment of present-day reality, taking responsibility for their actions - and adjusting their course accordingly - the Europeans will descend into madness and break into competing factions, each convinced it is the "real" European culture. When they are no longer able to subjugate "inferior" foreigners they will proceed to tear each other to pieces as they have done so often in the past. Only this time they have weapons that can destroy the entire planet many times over. And they will use them. Delusions of grandeur and divinely ordained supremacy...it's a hell of a drug. SpookMaster (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC) 

Commission an essay on white supremacist logic?[edit]

I'd be interested in a sort of study dissecting the logic of white supremacy. It's largely a blog-movement, which I usually loathe, but blogs have become pretty good insights into the thoughts of people who aren't in political or scientific ascendancy. Consider Aryan Sky Net, a pseudo-intellectual blog that seems representative of the more intellectual trends in white supremacy. They seem to uphold the ideals of fascism while distancing themselves from the Nazis--they want to combine historical conservatism, moral value-universalism, and technological futurism. Very odd. Way odder than the Marxists with whom I sympathize, since at least the Marxists try to derive their analyses from academia.

Still, they're way more sophisticated than the swastika-tatted trash I grew up with down here in Tennessee. Definitely worth study. 50.153.134.144 (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's very simple. Humans are social creatures; we need to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, while making us feel important. Many groups offer this sense of identity and belonging and ego stroking. Hate groups offer this identity, and tell people they are awesome just for 'winning' a genetic lottery. CorruptUser (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more than that--they imported the logic of left-wing analysis in a rather peculiar manner. They also appear to despise the GOP just as much as anyone on the ideological left does. There's also splits of religion there with some atheists courting no rebuke. If they were just silly average people who want to belong I wouldn't expect them to be literate or educated (well, educated-sounding). Maybe they're a logical offshoot of Ayn Rand's odd little cult, but they're not like the hate groups I'm used to. Of course under that logic I suppose Marxism is a hate group whose economic subalterns won the lottery of poverty? One thing RationalWiki's community might need to work on is realizing these people have actual content, and are actually alive, and have actual political beliefs that they put into action in some way or another. Whether they're psychopaths who sleep in daylight or just curmudgeon retirees or men who can't get laid (I notice no women there) they write in such a way suggesting they have points of consideration and not just hate. I disagree with them, but writing them off as mere tribalists is quite mid-century I think. The conditions that produce people who think like that is not normal. 50.153.134.140 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


"You know, I love all of these racists who connect ethnicity or even just skin color (which really doesn't indicate one's 'race' at all) to crime and poverty."
Umm, no, no one did. They were talking about race. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing what point?[edit]

What is wrong with "Alternatively, as a person of roughly equal Black and White ancestry, Barack Obama can be considered to be equally justified in pride in both the achievement of his Black ancestors (Black pride), and also the achievements of his White ancestors (White pride)." I consider it a perfectly cromulent addition. The central claim "Blackness is defined by possession of black heritage, whereas whiteness is defined not by possession of white heritage, but by NOT possessing non-white heritage" is demonstrably false. I think "blackness" and "whiteness" are both broad terms which each is free to use as they feel fit. I have no problem with a person of any degree of white heritage identifying as white, nor a person of any degree of black heritage identifying as black, if that is how they choose to identify - or even identifying as both simultaneously. Others, of course, are not necessarily bound to agree with those identifications. I take it there is an allusion being made to the "one-drop rule"; but the one-drop rule is just plain stupid, and one can love the white race yet consider the one drop rule to be pure malarkey. I love the white race (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Cromulent indeed. Thanks's for the winking smiley. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Just because I love the white race, does not mean I cannot be a fan of the Simpsons, or have a certain degree of playfulness in my discourse. I love the white race (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The other problem is that race is largely defined by "other" rather than self, despite people trying to reclaim that. A person "of color" who looks mostly white, but slightly "off white", saying "i'm white" will be taken with distrust by the white community. a person 50/50 who clearly looks darker and "cannot pass for white" will be dismissed fully if they say "I am white". Obama would sound silly calling himself white, in our white culture, for all he is equally white/black. do you remember the hell a young tiger woods had, tryign to say "I am not black. i am 1/4 black, but the majority of me is asian'. no one said "oh, then you are teh first asian to play that this tournement. they said he is the first african american to play. even when that was NOT the lable he wanted for himself".Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
All categorisation systems necessarily involve "otherness" and "sameness" so your point is baloney. And obviously people who are no White are not White. What an absurd piece of writing. A person who is 75% Asian is not Asian and will be, perhaps not "dismissed fully" as you ludicrously hyperbolised and emotified it, but simply contradicted as wrong if they claim they are Asian. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

− I tried adding the argument about the non-equivalence of defining white and black people (a paraphrase of the argument in this article) to the Wikipedia page on "White pride" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pride - but it got removed again as "unsourced". Does anyone know of a "reliable reference" (other than common sense) for this argument? --Yisfidri (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

Does Rationalwiki have no standards? A biased, crude, extremely poorly researched article written at a 6th grader's level is passable around here? For example you claim that WS is based on 19th century pseudoscience, yet ignore the hundreds of contemporary studies confirming again and again that, there are indeed racial differences in mental faculties. James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA claims so as well, but I guess he's just an uneducated bigot who needs to read a book, right? Having the word "Rational" in your domain name is truly a disgrace to the word. — Unsigned, by: 178.40.88.210 / talk / contribs

Drink! The RationalWiki mob is well aware of Watson's idiosyncrasies. There is such a thing as an educated bigot. See Nobel disease. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you even know what "bigot" means? 125.61.100.2 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
"Does Rationalwiki have no standards? A biased, crude, extremely poorly researched article written at a 6th grader's level is passable around here?"
Sure, as long as it contains no bigotry (here defined as criticising non-Whites or non-Christians in any way) 125.61.100.2 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

White Pride[edit]

White Pride is the term some supremacists use to claim that they are simply proud of their white/Aryan heritage rather then claiming that their heritage some how makes them better then other races. They often point to Black Pride or Asian Pride groups as a double standard or reverse racism that they can form without a second thought while any White Pride is declared racist by default. This claim quickly falls apart under any sort of inspection. For instance, they say that if black pride is allowed, then white pride should be socially acceptable also. But there is a non-equivalence in the definitions of blackness and whiteness. Blackness is defined by possession of black heritage, whereas whiteness is defined not by possession of white heritage, but by NOT possessing non-white heritage. Barack Obama, for example, has one black parent and one white parent, but is considered black by all black people, but is not considered white by white people. Black pride therefore means being proud to have black ancestors, but white pride means being proud to have no non-white ancestors, which can indeed be seen as offensive. If they really wanted to be equivalent, they could create (for example) a French Pride parade... where the Haitian and other black people with French heritage are also allowed to take part.

This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Black pride therefore means being proud to have black ancestors, but white pride means being proud to have no non-white ancestors"
So a one quarter Black Japanese can have Black Pride, but a one quarter White Japanese cannot have White pride?
Who wrote this nonsense? #Ijusthatewhitepeople 125.61.100.2 (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

Can I have some debunkings of common white supremacist statements (blacks commit most of the crime, IQ stuff, etc)? It seems that there are no sound debunkings of these ideas on the wiki, which is strange since most crank ideas (such as 9/11 conspiracy theories) have long lists of refutations which carefully dissect every statement made by the proponents. 2.220.77.67 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There are in the related articles like racialism. Just like how the 9/11 conspiracies are not debunked in the main conspiracy page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Long List of Murders Committed by White Extremists Since the Oklahoma City Bombing[edit]

That's a lot. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lack of argumentation[edit]

The whole page assumes white supremacy to be false, but it provides no argument for why this is the case. Why is pride in one's skin color being superior not ok? — Unsigned, by: 151.77.239.135 / talk / contribs

Because it's based entirely on falsehoods, inflated & undeserved sense of superiority, and outright denial of reality? Are you okay with black supremacy? How about that (fringe) female supremacy? Would you just as ardently defend someone who believed they were superior by dint of being a narcissist? If not, ask yourself why. 100.11.63.225 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete[edit]

I agree with the content, but it's incomplete because "white supremacy" means more than what's included here. See wikipedia page and it's section "Academic use of the term." — Unsigned, by: 12.96.41.191 / talk / contribs


European Supremacy[edit]

So why do white supremacists always get angrily constipated about their right to celebrate "white" culture? If you are, say, Swiss or are of Swiss ancestry who is stopping you from celebrating your European heritage or culture? Yodelling, Fondue, Skiing, Watchmaking, money laundering and dressing up in colourful Lederhosen and Dirndl type costumes are all celebrating the Swiss aspects of European heritage and culture...right? Right! But white supremacists aren't interested in Mozart or Dadaism or even Wagner and Heidegger - all arguably part of European culture. Why is that? Because "culture" in WhiSup speak means "European people (including the "new world" settler variety) and their way of life dominating the world because they are superior to all other cultures and peoples." So white supremacy is the same as European supremacy. Makes "sense", no? The United States is just old Europe on steroids...the same pattern of imperial domination continues. The only difference is the American way of imperialism does not require formal colonization or a large number of Americans physically present in client states and subjugated territories. Which countries are "the enemy"? Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Sudan etc. White (i.e. Western and Northern European) countries do not get bombed and sanctioned no matter what they do. And the US doesn't bomb and sanction itself for all the war crimes and torture and human rights abuses it commits.

It is quite clear which countries think they have a divine right to force other states and people to submit to their rule. Official American policy is world domination. Think about that next time you are not thinking about which "axis of evil" country or "rogue state" is getting bombed into the stone age. Think about that when you're arguing about "liberals" or "conservatives" like it makes a difference to the people of Mosul or Raqqa or Yemen or Pakistan what their killers "self-identify" as. Notice how the loudest Trump "haters" line up to love him when he bombs Muslim countries. Yes, you and you and you (not me because I am me and you are you) are a stooge for white supremacy. Yes, it's true...and you KNOW it and FEEL it and now you need to CONFRONT it and STOP pretending you are separate from it. Okay? Alright. OK. Good luck. And don't give me no Wikipedia grief about NPOV and crap like that. This is NOT Wikipedia! It is RationalWiki, n'est-ce pas? That's right and my Talk debut here is on the BLEEDING EDGE of rational (if also somewhat aroused and passionate but always always RATIONALLY so). Now get outta here and make yourself useful. Peace out. SpookMaster (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)