Is Anti-Racism Immoral?

Apr 2018
109
70
America
#1
An interesting, thought provoking article from the Alt-Right.

“To take the principles of anti-racism to their logical conclusion is to destroy one’s people and one’s society by design, indeed by necessity. To refuse to distinguish between “us” and “them” in the context of a nation is to abolish the nation itself. To do so in the context or religion is to effectively abolish the religion. If any group wishes to survive, it must take some measures to protect the defining characteristic(s) of the group. Indeed, it must take not only some measures, but adequate measures to do so. To not do so, is to ensure its own demise. What’s more, in the modern world, punctuated by extreme pressures to migrate to wealthier areas, to not do so is to ensure the group’s demise swiftly, via parasitism and invasion.”

https://altright.com/2018/04/28/anti-racism-is-immoral/

I think it’s important that we distinguish between normal racism which causes people to maintain an in-group vs. the liberal idea of racism which is just hating on people for being different. I believe racism is morally neutral, as is its antithesis. Being racist or anti-racist doesn’t cause a person to commit right or wrong acts, it’s the person’s own desires, only slightly influenced by racism or anti-racism that will make the difference between committing a right or wrong action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlk7o5T56iw
 
Nov 2017
1,444
793
.
#2
If being anti-racist is immoral, then in that context, I am as immoral as one can be.

I used to be active on a particular libertarian leaning online forum, and you would've been wandering straight into a hornet's nest if you had unwittingly posted such a link, with the desire to portray such a notion in a positive light. I remember one time one of these alt right "racial realist" BS types came into the chat room at that online forum, and we heckled them until they got themselves banned from the chat room. I think they might've even gotten themselves banned from that forum entirely.

BTW, for those who are curious about why I'm no longer active on this particular libertarian leaning online forum in question, it's because I once posted a response to a thread, which the mods or admins decided to remove from where guest visitors couldn't see it, to a different thread in a section of the forum that only people who were logged in could see. As a libertarian, I figured ok, it's their website and they have a right to do whatever they wish with it, and I have a right to leave and not post there anymore. I haven't posted anything there or even logged into it in years.

There was also someone on the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) forum who came on there doing the same thing you're doing, and I immediately spotted & called them out for what they were trying to do. That TZM forum no longer exists, and it's the 2nd time they've removed their forum, so unfortunately I cannot provide links to any of those posts.

Anyways, I'm curious to see how folks on this forum react; for now, at least, I'm just going to lay back and watch to see what direction they go in.

Treating people as members of a group (or collective) rather than as individuals (essentially what socialism does, in general) is what I'd call immoral - if "immoral" is supposed to mean wrong, unacceptable, undesirable, bad, evil, sinister - that sort of thing.

I suppose I could also say that it's also immoral to put the individual before the collective (essentially what ancaps think they're trying to achieve), but at least that'll never work, so it doesn't really matter.

The only right or moral thing is something that neither puts the collective before the individual nor the individual before the collective; that's what I think (true) libertarianism seeks to accomplish, which is why I consider myself a libertarian (and am opposed to racism - particularly state-imposed).

Given that freedom of speech is also a libertarian principle, I think racists ought to have the right to say what's on their mind; for the same reason, I also think anti-racists have the right to say what's on their mind. One reason is because when racists say what's on their mind, they reveal what they are & it's much easier to spot them that way. Without freedom of speech, how do I know who the racists are, so I can heckle, berate, or simply avoid them?

Regarding Ice T, I think he's ok - he's pro 2nd Amendment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Likes: 2 people
Dec 2014
25,566
13,828
Memphis, Tn.
#3
An interesting, thought provoking article from the Alt-Right.

“To take the principles of anti-racism to their logical conclusion is to destroy one’s people and one’s society by design, indeed by necessity. To refuse to distinguish between “us” and “them” in the context of a nation is to abolish the nation itself. To do so in the context or religion is to effectively abolish the religion. If any group wishes to survive, it must take some measures to protect the defining characteristic(s) of the group. Indeed, it must take not only some measures, but adequate measures to do so. To not do so, is to ensure its own demise. What’s more, in the modern world, punctuated by extreme pressures to migrate to wealthier areas, to not do so is to ensure the group’s demise swiftly, via parasitism and invasion.”

https://altright.com/2018/04/28/anti-racism-is-immoral/

I think it’s important that we distinguish between normal racism which causes people to maintain an in-group vs. the liberal idea of racism which is just hating on people for being different. I believe racism is morally neutral, as is its antithesis. Being racist or anti-racist doesn’t cause a person to commit right or wrong acts, it’s the person’s own desires, only slightly influenced by racism or anti-racism that will make the difference between committing a right or wrong action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlk7o5T56iw
Moronic fucking gibberish.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2016
4,582
2,356
Canada
#4
An interesting, thought provoking article from the Alt-Right.

“To take the principles of anti-racism to their logical conclusion is to destroy one’s people and one’s society by design, indeed by necessity. To refuse to distinguish between “us” and “them” in the context of a nation is to abolish the nation itself. To do so in the context or religion is to effectively abolish the religion. If any group wishes to survive, it must take some measures to protect the defining characteristic(s) of the group. Indeed, it must take not only some measures, but adequate measures to do so. To not do so, is to ensure its own demise. What’s more, in the modern world, punctuated by extreme pressures to migrate to wealthier areas, to not do so is to ensure the group’s demise swiftly, via parasitism and invasion.”

https://altright.com/2018/04/28/anti-racism-is-immoral/

I think it’s important that we distinguish between normal racism which causes people to maintain an in-group vs. the liberal idea of racism which is just hating on people for being different. I believe racism is morally neutral, as is its antithesis. Being racist or anti-racist doesn’t cause a person to commit right or wrong acts, it’s the person’s own desires, only slightly influenced by racism or anti-racism that will make the difference between committing a right or wrong action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlk7o5T56iw
I don't accept any forms of essentialism...whether it's by race, nation, gender, sexual orientation, culture or whatever you call "one’s people and one’s society." Nor do I accept class essentialism for that matter, and that's one of the reasons why I am not a Marxist.

I'm sure that deep inside, the right and whatever calls itself now "Alt" right are loving anti-racist action. Because these groups make the same race essentialist arguments as their Neonazi enemies...they just do it from the other side of the battlelines. But, they are fighting the same war on the same turf as the fascists, and I don't see that as a winnable war or one worth fighting for! ARA members may have good intentions, but they have no clue as to how to make alliances with the broad masses of people outside of their little groups and their issues. If you demand that every white male has to "check his privilege" whether he has the economic foundation to have any privilege to begin with, you're making more enemies than friends, and driving potential allies into the hands of the alt-right fascists whenever the shit really hits the fan and things get worse than they are today!
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2016
4,582
2,356
Canada
#5
If being anti-racist is immoral, then in that context, I am as immoral as one can be.

I used to be active on a particular libertarian leaning online forum, and you would've been wandering straight into a hornet's nest if you had unwittingly posted such a link, with the desire to portray such a notion in a positive light. I remember one time one of these alt right "racial realist" BS types came into the chat room at that online forum, and we heckled them until they got themselves banned from the chat room. I think they might've even gotten themselves banned from that forum entirely.

BTW, for those who are curious about why I'm no longer active on this particular libertarian leaning online forum in question, it's because I once posted a response to a thread, which the mods or admins decided to remove from where guest visitors couldn't see it, to a different thread in a section of the forum that only people who were logged in could see. As a libertarian, I figured ok, it's their website and they have a right to do whatever they wish with it, and I have a right to leave and not post there anymore. I haven't posted anything there or even logged into it in years.

There was also someone on the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) forum who came on there doing the same thing you're doing, and I immediately spotted & called them out for what they were trying to do. That TZM forum no longer exists, and it's the 2nd time they've removed their forum, so unfortunately I cannot provide links to any of those posts.

Anyways, I'm curious to see how folks on this forum react; for now, at least, I'm just going to lay back and watch to see what direction they go in.

Treating people as members of a group (or collective) rather than as individuals (essentially what socialism does, in general) is what I'd call immoral - if "immoral" is supposed to mean wrong, unacceptable, undesirable, bad, evil, sinister - that sort of thing.

I suppose I could also say that it's also immoral to put the individual before the collective (essentially what ancaps think they're trying to achieve), but at least that'll never work, so it doesn't really matter.

The only right or moral thing is something that neither puts the collective before the individual nor the individual before the collective; that's what I think (true) libertarianism seeks to accomplish, which is why I consider myself a libertarian (and am opposed to racism - particularly state-imposed).

Given that freedom of speech is also a libertarian principle, I think racists ought to have the right to say what's on their mind; for the same reason, I also think anti-racists have the right to say what's on their mind. One reason is because when racists say what's on their mind, they reveal what they are & it's much easier to spot them that way. Without freedom of speech, how do I know who the racists are, so I can heckle, berate, or simply avoid them?

Regarding Ice T, I think he's ok - he's pro 2nd Amendment.

Since you're going to join the rightwing crowd now trying to play the MLK card, remember King had more to say than "I have a dream," he also demanded a "war on poverty" and an end to the Vietnam War in his final speech "Beyond Vietnam" which never seems to get quoted these days...but anyone who really understands what MLK was all about is sure that was the main reason why Hoover made sure he got shot in Memphis 50 years ago!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 2017
1,444
793
.
#6
Since you're going to join the rightwing crowd now trying to play the MLK card,
I'm not sure I follow - are you insinuating that the rightwing crowd is falsely or unjustly accusing these alt right white separatist/supremacists types of being racists? I won't argue about whether or not the rightwing crowd is making such accusations, but if they are I don't agree that it's false or unjust.

remember King had more to say than "I have a dream," he also demanded a "war on poverty" and an end to the Vietnam War in his final speech "Beyond Vietnam" which never seems to get quoted these days...but anyone who really understands what MLK was all about is sure that was the main reason why Hoover made sure he got shot in Memphis 50 years ago!
How is this relevant to this thread?
 
Dec 2016
4,582
2,356
Canada
#7
I'm not sure I follow - are you insinuating that the rightwing crowd is falsely or unjustly accusing these alt right white separatist/supremacists types of being racists? I won't argue about whether or not the rightwing crowd is making such accusations, but if they are I don't agree that it's false or unjust.


How is this relevant to this thread?
Don't invoke martyrs of the civil rights and antipoverty movements of the past to rebrand as rightwing capitalist heroes.
 
Apr 2018
109
70
America
#10
Moronic fucking gibberish.
go to hell with your nazi bullshit
I don't accept any forms of essentialism...whether it's by race, nation, gender, sexual orientation, culture or whatever you call "one’s people and one’s society." Nor do I accept class essentialism for that matter, and that's one of the reasons why I am not a Marxist.
Treating people as members of a group (or collective) rather than as individuals (essentially what socialism does, in general) is what I'd call immoral - if "immoral" is supposed to mean wrong, unacceptable, undesirable, bad, evil, sinister - that sort of thing.
A nation is made up of people, and if you dilute the essence of a people with foreign blood then does not the nation cease to exist?

Could we call Germany, Germany, if there are no actual Germans still living there? Can we call China, China, if all the Chinese are eventually breed out?

I suppose the biggest point of being a race realist for anyone is, why should I become a minority in my own country? By what right do foreigners have to make me a minority in my own country; to replace my culture and way of life with their own?

A clear breakdown by Red Ice TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPm0NKcBZcY&t=2s
 

Similar Discussions