Former British Colony in Downward Spiral of Ethnic Violence, State Security Impunity

[Montmorency]

1. All women in the video (I suspect you are biased against the blondes) are not Russian. They are Ukrainian. Speaking Russian. And they are not random vloggers. It is a TV travel show with ten years of history behind it. Called Орел и Решка. Google it.

I am familiar with the concept of reality TV, which only speaks to my point. But I take your correction.

Blonde is the canonical apex of the white woman hierarchy, at least in the West.

2. You summary of the video: it was a staged one

Correct. Postmodern reification of what is "truer than true" (c.f. Catch-22, All the Things They Carried) can have its place, but when your message is 'Africa is eo ipso dangerous and it is not racist to interject so', embedding a video containing multiple classically racist tropes as an authentic article of an African mugging a European woman as supporting material is counterproductive. It would be bad enough to condemn a continent and a race on the basis of a single crime, but that it was a TV scene makes it worse.

This is why I scoff at people who assume everyone always marks a sharp divide between fiction and realty. Representation matters, and scenes like this one and the clip from National Lampoon's Vacation I embedded earlier are enduringly absorbed as reality by many viewers.



By the way, here is a very real video of aggressive police unjustly harassing a group of young men of color.

A short rundown of your stance: there are a lot of dangerous places in the world (including Kyiv and Ukraine - I agree, why not?), but you can't mention some of them (Africa and Harlem) not to sound racist.

I disagree that Harlem is dangerous. But being a purely subjective label, it could be that you have applied some legitimate definition of danger to include Harlem. So what is the context in which you brought it up? You were dismissing the poet Chukovsky's eremiad on Africa as being innocuous and non-racist in its stereotypical concern with the people and animals of that place, in the expectation that it would also be uncontroversial and non-racist to enumerate Harlem as a dangerous place. (The logic of the juxtaposition was never clear in the first place.)

I tried to get at why you would mention Harlem in the first place, and why you thought it should go without elaboration that Harlem is dangerous. Of questionable relevance to the discussion of the poem thought it may still have been, why was your first instinct to invoke Harlem, rather than Mt. Everest or a football riot? Why was your sole articulable criterion for danger the existence of crime, which I have not known to be a sufficient condition even in casual conversation? In the end the common overriding element of danger was that both places are famously populated by black people. In a thread about racism, where you've relentlessly discouraged the framing of racism as a sop to undeserving agitators.

Can you see it from the perspective of someone who minimally accepts the existence of anti-black racism, why they might scrutinize someone who works from the premise that blacks are overly-entitled, dangerous, coddled, attention hogs in a thread about, among other things, systematic police violence against black persons?

Because many people tend to play them down not to sound racist.

Choosing to emphasize them suggests one thinks they are a relatively-important issue, which demands justification.

You intentionally try to put into my mouth words that I never said or forget what I did say. I more than once repeated my stance on ANY boots on ANY necks. But you choose to see what fits with your

Your words don't match up to the stated ideal. For example:

It is true, his race wasn't the reason for acquittal. Yet race factored greatly into the verdict, which it shouldn't. [These two sentences may contradict each other] That is why we should be concerned about the racial implications of OJ's acquittal. You seem to be concerned about the racial implications of all other events - from children's doggerels to cannibalism. Not about OJ, somehow.

It is up to you whether you want to view a unanimous jury decision acquitting a black man as greatly racially-motivated, but one could take that for given arguendo. You would still be leaving unexplained what the racial implications of the acquittal are, how they manifest anywhere in American society, and why you ultimately perform insistent concern over the possibility that a black person somewhere might get an undeserved break while giving not an ounce's worth of regard to the millions who suffer documented material and moral oppression. Isn't that - starkly differential consideration?

It is a matter of disgrace if a single gulity person should be acquitted. Race doesn't matter. For you it seems it does - because there are four centuries of slavery behind them. So you try to weigh up hundreds against smaller numbers. The counting doesn't matter. The guilt does.

Would you prefer X number of patriotic Ukrainians become disappeared in the hunt for a Russian spy? You have the spirit of a true Stalinist if so, I guess. Our much-vaunted Enlightenment ideals have led us in a different direction, distinct from any racial politics.
https://www.cato.org/policing-in-ame...ckstones-ratio

The American system, grounded in the British Common Law, has long erred on the side of protecting innocence. Thus we presume an accused person's innocence until they are proven guilty. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,"[B]etter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."74 This principle can also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders.75 Benjamin Franklin went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."76
[...]
The survey posed dilemma to the American people, asking respondents which of the following scenarios they believe would be worse:

Having 20,000 people in prison who are actually innocent; or,
Having 20,000 people not in prison who are actually guilty
The survey found that a majority (60%) of Americans say it would be worse to have 20,000 innocent people in prison, while 40% say it would be worse to have 20,000 people who are actually guilty but not in prison.

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23648

As noted before, nearly all of these individuals were arrested for having fit the profile of a potential enemy, not for things they had actually done. Stalin proceeded from the belief that innocent people would inevitably be repressed in the process of destroying enemies and that it was better to arrest innocents than to let the guilty go free. As he stated during the Great Terror, “'every communist is a possible hidden enemy. And because it is not easy to recognize the enemy, the goal is achieved even if only 5 percent of those killed are truly enemies'” (p. 196).

That's doublethink at its best: you can't remind blacks about their skin color which you can very well do with whites.

The invocation of doublethink is poetic set against the Stalin excerpt.

Of course that's not remotely what I said. You can remind anyone of their skin color as such. What you may not do is pretend that being reminded of your skin color (and associated privilege relative to others) is a form of oppression against whites.

I see. My arguments are always either red herring or working too hard. Except that they aren't arguments but facts.

Your arguments are a paragon of objectivity and are never far-fetched. Rock on.

When you are so dismissive, while declining either to defend or substantiate your statements nor rebut my own, you only demonstrate your unseriousness and vindicate all my complaints about your posture.

Just below is an example of a red herring, pointing to the existence of cannibalism in some parts of the Pacific as though it could be a defense of persistent reference to Hawaiians as cannibals in spite of repeated notice that they were not.

Isn't the bold a?

A translation of this stement of yours:
Being on a moral high ground (as you think) gives you unmitigated temerity to be right even before the debate starts. Something like "Don't you dare to question the correctness of my opinion".

No, I have largely remained planted in the realm of fact while probing your insoluble personal sentiment. See above. My moral status does not enter into the conversation.

It's exasperating that I take the trouble to carefully and repeatedly explain to you the deficiencies in your stances and you think you can just "Nuh-UH" your way clear.

The importance and relevance are gauged agaisnt the result. The latter boils down to my realizing after tons of words even more that being emotionally invested you tend to see one side of the story only, get angry at people who try to dispute your attitude, and simplify the versatility of motifs by reducing them to racism. Is this what you have been trying to prove? Hardly.

To the contrary, you might be too emotionally invested in your innocence and unassailable rectitude. Even by now you've hardly deigned to engage with a thing I've said. I'd hoped at the least we'd found shared understanding of "Black Lives Matter," but even there you retracted. Yet you act as though you have standing to demand

This is not the first attempt to try to sound teacher-like to me. Do differently

Полное издевательство

You wouldn't tolerate this from either a student or a peer in your own life. Please have the courtesy of addressing the substance of what I post if you're going to comment on it. Paraphrasing it back to me in an ingenuous and accurate way would be a start.

Some things that racism is, for reference. Racism is the belief that one's prejudicial attitudes are based in observable fact, when they actually reflect taste-based aversion. Racism is reinforcing systematic benefit of the doubt for one race against another. Racism is condoning ethnic hierarchies. Racism is the anxiety that it is worse in principle to be associated with the word "racism" than to uphold racism.

[Montmorency]

Videos for thread.



The Debate Over Cecil John Rhodes | The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan

Of course you can. Generally speaking, it seems that most of the time when inter-ethnic relations are discussed in a US-aware context, meta perspectives are thrown out of the window.

In an absolute sense it's possible. One could encounter a group of nonwhites who are motivated by a sense of revenge; you're just walking down the street when you hear "You must die, damn cracker! White demon!" and get beaten to death in a hate crime. An Islamic terrorist organization could decide that a majority-white space is by proxy Christian or anti-Islamic and therefore target it. But these sorts of scenarios are marginal or have a very restricted application. If you'd like a more precise formulation, being non-white is overwhelmingly more likely to be a disadvantage than being white is. Whiteness, as a reminder, is the nail of the whole modern, global system of racial categorization. This is the case even in those societies where whiteness (as race, distinct from color) is not a concept with much internal application. Indeed, the term Person of Color is logically equivalent to "non-white." That's the context we're operating in.

[Gilrandir]

I am familiar with the concept of reality TV, which only speaks to my point. But I take your correction.

Blonde is the canonical apex of the white woman hierarchy, at least in the West.
Correct.

You may think whatever you like and consider the episode as staged. I don't. The show has a long history and repute, so I don't agree with your take on the issue. Again a matter of subjective attitude.

I disagree that Harlem is dangerous.

It is your right to disagree with stark figures which refute your claim.

I tried to get at why you would mention Harlem in the first place, and why you thought it should go without elaboration that Harlem is dangerous.

At first I went by a stereotype, you are right. But then I found official statistics and realized that at least this stereotype isn't totally incorrect - Harlem (as well as Manhattan, as it turned out) is dangerous.

Choosing to emphasize them suggests one thinks they are a relatively-important issue, which demands justification.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...w-force-armed/



I remember when people here were discussing Maidan and they dwelt a lot upon the makeshift weapons protesters used and nazi symbols some of them wore. Here is a whole bunch of uniformed people with automatic guns marching along the streets and wanting to create Texas only for blacks. Was anyone here indignant, outraged or appalled? I might be mistaken, but this rally never deserved an acrimonious word from forumers here. Instead I saw angry and critical comments as to a couple brandishing pistols on their front porch. How come? Not because violence, looting and threats on the part of protesters are to be hushed not to sound racist and not to besmear a noble cause?

you ultimately perform insistent concern over the possibility that a black person somewhere might get an undeserved break while giving not an ounce's worth of regard to the millions who suffer documented material and moral oppression.

I more than once expressed my condemnation of oppression but I equally believe that past sufferings don't give any people indulgence for any misconduct now.

Would you prefer X number of patriotic Ukrainians become disappeared in the hunt for a Russian spy? You have the spirit of a true Stalinist if so, I guess.

Let's imagine that it is not red herring. What do you mean by "become disappeared"? Killed in action, missing in action? What do you mean by "patriotic Ukrainians"? Secret service agents, policemen, military men or average people? Unless you clarify I can't answer your non-red herring.

When you are so dismissive, while declining either to defend or substantiate your statements nor rebut my own, you only demonstrate your unseriousness and vindicate all my complaints about your posture.

My rebuttals and substatiations are qualified as red herring or misinterpretations by you.

Just below is an example of a red herring, pointing to the existence of cannibalism in some parts of the Pacific as though it could be a defense of persistent reference to Hawaiians as cannibals in spite of repeated notice that they were not.

O-ho! Now that's a different story. In your post #178 in response to my words that

Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
They were, but putting it this way is racist.

you said

They generally weren't

Now you speak of EXISTENCE OF CANNIBALISM.

So much for me being dismissive and red-herringal and you being consistent and undoublethikable.

To the contrary, you might be too emotionally invested in your innocence and unassailable rectitude.

I follow your suit.

Even by now you've hardly deigned to engage with a thing I've said.

You again ascribe to me feelings that I don't have. I didn't deign or not deign. I just see no reason to repeat the same arguments to a person who doesn't consider them worthy or relevant and fails (as I believe) to refute them.

I'd hoped at the least we'd found shared understanding of "Black Lives Matter," but even there you retracted.

I didn't. I just made a reservation that all lives matter, which you didn't appreciate.

Racism is condoning ethnic hierarchies.

If race isn't implicated it can't be racism. Xenophobia, nazism, but not racism.

[Viking]

One could encounter a group of nonwhites who are motivated by a sense of revenge

Of course ethnic violence that targets innocents is going to have a "justification".

Meanwhile, in Sweden (from the Swedish state broadcaster; copying the output from Google Translate with a few fixes):

When 18-year-old "Liam" was on his way home from work, he was assaulted by two 16-year-old boys who abused and humiliated him.
- First I get beaten, then one of the guys chooses to urinate on me while he is filming this, he says.

The young men who abused and robbed "Liam" have been prosecuted and brought to justice. The verdict is expected soon. And for "Liam", the trial has been important:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/l...inerade-pa-mig

Two 16-year-old boys robbed, abused and humiliated Liam, 18. Everything was shown in a video that was spread on social media. SVT Nyheter has met the parents of one of the suspects.

[...]

The parents came to Sweden six years ago. Both work part time, the father studies SFI and the mother studies to be a nurse. And the economy is good according to the parents. The son gets what he needs.

- My son gets branded mobile phones and branded clothes so that he does not have to look at other people's things. He has a monthly allowance and when he needs more money I or his mother send him money. Nothing is missing for him, says the father.

[...]

This young person says that he was called, among other things, a svenne when he was attacked by your son, why do you think he is attacking a person with a Swedish background?

- Sweden has done so much good for us, never anything bad. My son should never have said such wrong things, we are so happy with this country. We are indebted to the people here and should not speak ill of them. No one should have to experience such words and actions, neither Swedes nor others.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/m...ade-liam-skams

There are good reasons to believe that assaults with similar ethnic profiles, relative to the total number of assaults, are common. But ethnicity is often left out completely in reporting in mainstream sources, making verification hard.



There is one important aspect that you are not mentioning above, and that is the numbers. Typically, if there is an ethnic group that forms a majority, it's the group holds most of the power. In the US, people of African ancestry form a minority; so they are naturally vulnerable.

Other aspects include wealth and power at a national level. The last couple of centuries, countries dominated by Europeans have been among the wealthiest and most powerful. They have also simultaneously been big exporters of culture, which exposes the wealth and power of these countries to other countries, raising the prestige of the 'European' countries in the eyes of others.

The prestige of countries and their inhabitants is in constant flux. The perceived prestige of being of European ancestry cannot be expected to last; it is a ship that could right itself - or heel differently - as more non-European countries gain wealth and power.

Meanwhile, in terms of numbers, what is ahead?

Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

[...]

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

And the study says Nigeria will become the world's second biggest country, with a population of 791 million.

Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

For African-Americans, implicitly the subject of this thread, this might not matter much because of the Atlantic ocean.

For ethnic Europeans living in Europe, it could mean everything - because numbers matter, and a future of rainbows and harmony cannot be taken for granted.

[edyzmedieval]

If you're white, you will never suffer for being white.

Yes you can, you definitely can. Especially if you're Eastern European.

You can be whiter than milk in terms of skin colour and you will still suffer racist abuse regardless.

[CrossLOPER]

This is why I scoff at people who assume everyone always marks a sharp divide between fiction and realty. Representation matters, and scenes like this one and the clip from National Lampoon's Vacation I embedded earlier are enduringly absorbed as reality by many viewers.

My family actually had something like this happen when we first moved to the US. My dad turned into a crappy part of town at night back in the 90s, and we frequently had homeless people coming up to our car to ask for money for directions. I don't have any clear memories of this, but I was really young. The city has improved dramatically, and homeless people are a lot less daring, but homelessness itself seems to have not improved. I think the fact that there are a lot of organizations are helping those in need with food, clothing and shelter to the best of their ability is part of the reason why this is so.

This doesn't excuse anything, and you definitely should not use a comedy as an accurate reflection of real life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes you can, you definitely can. Especially if you're Eastern European.

You can be whiter than milk in terms of skin colour and you will still suffer racist abuse regardless.

Monty's statement has all too much truth in the USA, and in much of the old "first world" (NOTE: author recognizes the term to be completely un-PC) -- but it does not obtain everywhere. Nor are white folk like me the only racists (systemically or openly).

[Montmorency]

Yes you can, you definitely can. Especially if you're Eastern European.

You can be whiter than milk in terms of skin colour and you will still suffer racist abuse regardless.

You should explain. You make it sound personal.

You may think whatever you like and consider the episode as staged. I don't. The show has a long history and repute, so I don't agree with your take on the issue. Again a matter of subjective attitude.

I carefully explained the nature of the scene.

It is your right to disagree with stark figures which refute your claim.

At first I went by a stereotype, you are right. But then I found official statistics and realized that at least this stereotype isn't totally incorrect - Harlem (as well as Manhattan, as it turned out) is dangerous.

You offered no reason to accept your opinion, which never amounted to more than identifying danger with the existence of crime in a place. You can think Manhattan is dangerous - you just don't offer any independent basis for doing so.

I remember when people here were discussing Maidan and they dwelt a lot upon the makeshift weapons protesters used and nazi symbols some of them wore. Here is a whole bunch of uniformed people with automatic guns marching along the streets and wanting to create Texas only for blacks. Was anyone here indignant, outraged or appalled? I might be mistaken, but this rally never deserved an acrimonious word from forumers here. Instead I saw angry and critical comments as to a couple brandishing pistols on their front porch. How come? Not because violence, looting and threats on the part of protesters are to be hushed not to sound racist and not to besmear a noble cause?

What is your point, that black men with guns are to be condemned alongside Nazis? A brave stand. I don't agree with NFAC's philosophy - they oppose Black Lives Matter and endorse separatism - but they haven't done anything harmful that I am aware of. Unlike the police. And they have no authority over anyone. Unlike the police. And they're not allied or coordinated with the police - unlike many white Patriot militias.

I more than once expressed my condemnation of oppression but I equally believe that past sufferings don't give any people indulgence for any misconduct now.

Much less then, does past hegemony license continued misconduct - right? There's only one dispositive part of the equation here, yet you don't show much concern.

You've spent maybe 0.1% of your space in this thread doing anything that resembles condemnation of oppression. I saw excuses of violence, looting, and threats by any number of white people or governments, but as soon as someone breaks a window in protest of this it's game over. What kind of values would support that disparate consideration?

Let's imagine that it is not red herring. What do you mean by "become disappeared"? Killed in action, missing in action? What do you mean by "patriotic Ukrainians"? Secret service agents, policemen, military men or average people? Unless you clarify I can't answer your non-red herring.

Invent any scenario you like. You can read for comprehension just below what you quoted.

O-ho! Now that's a different story. In your post #178 in response to my words that

Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
They were, but putting it this way is racist.

you said

They generally weren't

Now you speak of EXISTENCE OF CANNIBALISM.

So much for me being dismissive and red-herringal and you being consistent and undoublethikable.

Why do you act as though all peoples of the Pacific Islands shared the same culture, or had the same essential characteristics (there's a word for this)? They didn't. Some Europeans speak Ukrainian - most don't. The Irish, for example, tend not to. Hawaiians were not cannibals at the time of contact. How many times is it that I've said so?

You again ascribe to me feelings that I don't have. I didn't deign or not deign. I just see no reason to repeat the same arguments to a person who doesn't consider them worthy or relevant and fails (as I believe) to refute them.

You're right. I regret assigning beliefs or motivations to you, because in truth they don't matter. The bottom line here is that you've produced a long list of falsehoods, distortions, and distractions in demeaning the interests of non-whites, which I reprove.

If race isn't implicated it can't be racism. Xenophobia, nazism, but not racism.

All we've talked about here is race.

The prestige of countries and their inhabitants is in constant flux. The perceived prestige of being of European ancestry cannot be expected to last; it is a ship that could right itself - or heel differently - as more non-European countries gain wealth and power.

Meanwhile, in terms of numbers, what is ahead?

It is an important point that power and hierarchy are contingent. If it were not so, opposing white racism would be like whipping the sea in its futile extravagance. But the current material and social arrangements remain in place, and continue to perpetuate themselves. Anxiety or alarmism over a global 'overcorrection' is more than a little premature. It is an interesting theoretical question, first of all how to dissolve or deconstruct whiteness, and in parallel how to promote more egalitarian national or international orders so that there isn't a different, more complex or more fluid, racial hierarchy in the place of the old one. No idea how to make that into a checklist or flow chart. Regardless, the balance of the problem remains squarely where it has always been. The miniscule threat of suffering non-white hooliganism in Sweden can't compare to the disadvantages baked in for those non-whites. It is what it is right now and one can't turn away from that truth.

As many as 47.9% of all registered and registered unemployed in the country are today born outside Europe, the Swedish Public Employment Service announces today and together with the so-called "second generations" with a non-European background, residents with some form of non-European background now make up the majority and lion share of all unemployed ( NOTE: 100,000s of foreign Europeans who live and work in the million program areas are also de facto unemployed without being actively seeking work and registered and registered as unemployed).

Of all foreign-born unemployed, as many as 82.1% were born outside Europe and while the majority of Swedes' unemployment is down to around 2-2.5% (NOTE: lower than that, it is not possible to push down the unemployment of a certain so-called people in a so-called developed and modern country as there are always some who have "gone into the wall", who are so-called "knocked out" and "get sick" and who have a functional variation and have difficulty getting a job, etc.) while unemployment among foreign-born is 18.8% and among the residents with a background in Africa and Asia, this is an unemployment rate of 25-30%.

No other developed country, western country or European country on earth shows such astronomical and surrealistic differences (as those reported above) between the majority population and the minority population in terms of unemployment (and thus also in terms of huge differences in material standards, physical and mental and / health, personal financial status, life expectancy, room for maneuver, living space, purchasing power, consumption patterns, lifestyle, etc.) and all this during a boom that still seems “peak:a ”- ie when the recession hits, it will unfortunately in all probability be" seven trips worse "for the country's inhabitants in the million program areas and for the country's inhabitants with some kind of non-European background which today amount to at least 20% of the Swedish total population and the shootings and explosions we see today can unfortunately in the worst case be multiplied by a recession.

In France, Britain and the USA, for example, the differences are of course also huge between, for example, the inhabitants with Arab and Berber and West African and Southeast Asian backgrounds and the majority French, between the inhabitants with Caribbean, West African and South Asian backgrounds and the majority Britons and between blacks and Latinos and white Americans. is at the same time far smaller than those that apply in Sweden:The "normal" in the US is, for example, that unemployment is always twice as high among black Americans as among white Americans, but in Sweden we are talking about an unemployment level among the country's inhabitants with some form of non-European background that is so improbably high compared to unemployment among majority Swedes that it is hardly possible to calculate it in percent and even if the percentage is calculated, it becomes so incomprehensible that it is hardly an idea to do so (ie it is for some groups of non-Europeans about 1000 percent difference compared to the majority residents in).

Didn't look at this one but seems relevant: RANDOMLY SELECTED: RACIAL/ETHNIC PROFILING IN SWEDEN

It's fascinating that even Sweden - "even," mark that assumption - maintained a tropical slave colony for a time.

At least Sweden isn't (to my knowledge) Denmark, where even the left embraces a national chauvinism somewhere between Orban's Hungary and pre-war America.

For ethnic Europeans living in Europe, it could mean everything - because numbers matter, and a future of rainbows and harmony cannot be taken for granted.

The future outlook remains a lot worse for black Africans anywhere than it does for whites anywhere. If we can imagine a scenario involving hundreds of millions of dead or displaced Africans in a short period of time - and this is not unlikely in our lifetimes - then we should take a step back and look at the big picture before bemoaning the potential second-order effects of this worst-in-history devastation on Europe.

[Gilrandir]

I carefully explained the nature of the scene.

You didn't explain. You related the gist of the story and said that blondes didn't deserve any credit just because they are blondes. Thus you insulted all women of that hair color (my wife and daughter including) and set at naught the credit story of a reputable travel show. So much for your non-biased take on things.

You offered no reason to accept your opinion, which never amounted to more than identifying danger with the existence of crime in a place. You can think Manhattan is dangerous - you just don't offer any independent basis for doing so.

This is why I "deign to avoid" answering you. My reason and basis was the map by New York authorities, which you interpret in your peculiar way different from the color scheme solution it offers. But you keep sayng that I gave neither reason nor basis.

What is your point, that black men with guns are to be condemned alongside Nazis? A brave stand. I don't agree with NFAC's philosophy - they oppose Black Lives Matter and endorse separatism - but they haven't done anything harmful that I am aware of. Unlike the police. And they have no authority over anyone. Unlike the police. And they're not allied or coordinated with the police - unlike many white Patriot militias.

Whenever some unsavory fact that ruins your unimpeachable stance surfaces you react with "what's your point" and "how is that relevant".

You still seem to fail to understand that ANY men with guns are to be condemned in this situation. Especially paramilitary troops with automatic weaponry marching along peaceful neighborhoods and calling for the secession of a territory to create a monoracial country.

It is true, they haven't done anything, but the white pistol-brandishing couple did neither. Yet whole philippics were aimed at them (perhaps they deserve it, to some extent) yet NO ONE - let me stress - NO ONE batted an eyelid at NFAC marches. I expect that 400 years of slavery behind them excuse whatever they did, do and will yet do. You seem to believe that wrongs done against the black people in 400 years can be redressed by wrongs done by black people now.

I wonder what would be your reaction if a unit of white uniformed men with machine guns marched along neighborhoods and demanded secession of, say, Alaska and creating a state only for whites there?

You've spent maybe 0.1% of your space in this thread doing anything that resembles condemnation of oppression.

I would be glad if you mathematically proved the percentage. As you tried to do (but failed) with the Harlem/Manhattan crime rates. My condemnation was expressed more that once and it goes by default. I see no reason to start and finish every post with it otherwise it would be like repeating that the Earth rotates around the sun in every other sentence.

I saw excuses of violence, looting, and threats by any number of white people or governments, but as soon as someone breaks a window in protest of this it's game over. What kind of values would support that disparate consideration?

If I see something that isn't there, is it the fault of this something or me?

The Irish, for example, tend not to.

The Irish tend to not speak their own tongue either.

Hawaiians were not cannibals at the time of contact. How many times is it that I've said so?

The opinion of a random forum guy against the opinions of numerous internet sites that I quoted... Hmm... A tough choice who to trust.

The bottom line here is that you've produced a long list of falsehoods, distortions, and distractions in demeaning the interests of non-whites, which I reprove.

The same I may say about you and add also some slantings, biased attitudes and race-based indulgence - the things that you so vehemently seem to detest.

I hope that was really a bottomline.

[Montmorency]

You didn't explain. You related the gist of the story and said that blondes didn't deserve any credit just because they are blondes.

Nearly every detail of the scene, as I laid out, speaks against its spontaneity. Rather than repeating each of these and laying out their implausibility individually or in combination, it should be enough to refer to the behavior of the thief with respect to the cameraman. Maybe I could believe the cameraman has a truly prodigious commitment to capturing the scene, and would even allow the actress to be gutted before his eyes in his pursuit of Art. But a petty mugger wouldn't be beholden to such conventions. In this video we see the mugger, who has seemingly been observing the woman, almost completely ignore the male cameraman at all stages. In a real attack, the criminal would always prioritize a woman's male companion as the target, because attacking the woman right in front of her companion would be a great way to get flanked and neutralized. An assailant would try to neutralize the man first. Not only did the assailant not do this before attacking, he barely acknowledged the cameraman when he was running up right in his face or when he put his hand up in front of him - because he did not see the camerman as a threat.

So what we have here - if this were a real incident - is a thief maximizing the risk to himself in attacking this woman, and the cameraman maximizing the danger to himself and his companion. In reality what happens during a mugging is the thief gets behind the cameraman, bashes him on the head, grabs his phone or camera (worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, as compared to the $2 the thief took from the woman), and flees.

Since you persist in ignoring things I repeatedly explain, I'll repeat that blondeness has an elevated aesthetic significance to Europeans, and blonde white (woman) vs. swarthy villain is a very old meme. I simply noted the instantiation here.

This is also not a real event, but it's arguably more realistic than the travel show scene.

set at naught the credit story of a reputable travel show.

You believe everything that happens on travel shows is spontaneous and unscripted? It's a dramatization, distasteful for its content and not for being a dramatization.

So much for your non-biased take on things.

There is of course no argument that pointing out a staged scene in a travel show is an indicator of bias.

This is why I "deign to avoid" answering you. My reason and basis was the map by New York authorities, which you interpret in your peculiar way different from the color scheme solution it offers. But you keep sayng that I gave neither reason nor basis.

You did not explain how the map supported your judgement. It does not and cannot do so without commentary.

Saying 'look - map - danger' as though that means something is so stupid that it legitimately makes me angry that I'm having to point this out 5 times.

Whenever some unsavory fact that ruins your unimpeachable stance surfaces you react with "what's your point" and "how is that relevant".

Maybe because you would have to answer those questions for it to affect anything? You're basically complaining that you have to justify anything you say.

You still seem to fail to understand that ANY men with guns are to be condemned in this situation. Especially paramilitary troops with automatic weaponry marching along peaceful neighborhoods and calling for the secession of a territory to create a monoracial country.

OK, that's great. Write an essay condemning the white militias and the police and I'll take you seriously. You're in a position like affirming your opposition to German operations against Poland, but insisting that we really have to address that Polish aggression against Germany. All countries matter!

It is true, they haven't done anything, but the white pistol-brandishing couple did neither.

Pointing your gun at someone is clearly different than pointing your gun at no one.

Yet whole philippics were aimed at them (perhaps they deserve it, to some extent) yet NO ONE - let me stress - NO ONE batted an eyelid at NFAC marches. I expect that 400 years of slavery behind them excuse whatever they did, do and will yet do.

Once again, why do you prioritize expressing your distaste at black people of all sorts yet handwave actual violence and oppression? If you spend all your time talking about one thing, but actively dismissing another, it is easy to get the impression you care about one but not the other. Though you moaned about it in the past, at least Ukrainian Nazis actually have an impact to be criticized for.

I wonder what would be your reaction if a unit of white uniformed men with machine guns marched along neighborhoods and demanded secession of, say, Alaska and creating a state only for whites there?

You would be skirting around a description of our far-right militias, who are an actual threat to the country with their political cover and relatively widespread support, unlike NFAC. To repeat myself.

Does it matter to you whether something is a threat or not, or only that they're black?

I would be glad if you mathematically proved the percentage. As you tried to do (but failed) with the Harlem/Manhattan crime rates. My condemnation was expressed more that once and it goes by default. I see no reason to start and finish every post with it otherwise it would be like repeating that the Earth rotates around the sun in every other sentence.

So if you have nothing to say, why are you here? You do have something to say, it's just that it's all centered around panic and distaste over black people.

[Strike For The South]

The Denmark stuff is wild. Imagine being forced to celebrate Christmas, learn Danish, and then have every single Dane tell you, you'll never be Danish. Like it is impossible for you to be Dane! I remember seeing that article in NYT. What is the end game there!?! I suppose Westphalia has outlived its usefulness and we should bring on the Global order?

Re: The Slavs and discrimination. Maybe it's true in Europe. I know the speaking Polish in England has been a hot button issue? I have met plenty and educated, progressive European opine about Americas social miasmas and in the next breath denounce Romani in the most stark racial terms.

[Gilrandir]

You believe everything that happens on travel shows is spontaneous and unscripted? It's a dramatization, distasteful for its content and not for being a dramatization.

And the blonde's distress and shock is a make-believe? Rock on.

You did not explain how the map supported your judgement. It does not and cannot do so without commentary.

I explained it in every post where it was mentioned. For the last time: the intensity of color shows the relative number of crimes. Since the intesity is the same for Harlem and Manhattan the number of crimes (especially felonies) is comparable. Hence, they are both dangerous.

OK, that's great. Write an essay condemning the white militias and the police and I'll take you seriously. You're in a position like affirming your opposition to German operations against Poland, but insisting that we really have to address that Polish aggression against Germany. All countries matter!



Pointing your gun at someone is clearly different than pointing your gun at no one.



Once again, why do you prioritize expressing your distaste at black people of all sorts yet handwave actual violence and oppression? If you spend all your time talking about one thing, but actively dismissing another, it is easy to get the impression you care about one but not the other. Though you moaned about it in the past, at least Ukrainian Nazis actually have an impact to be criticized for.



You would be skirting around a description of our far-right militias, who are an actual threat to the country with their political cover and relatively widespread support, unlike NFAC. To repeat myself.

Does it matter to you whether something is a threat or not, or only that they're black?



So if you have nothing to say, why are you here? You do have something to say, it's just that it's all centered around panic and distaste over black people.

* sigh*

I'm tired of repeating my stance that all people should be held responsible for their misdemeanors irrespective of the race. My distaste goes to all militias (both black or white), all rioters and looters (black or white), all policemen (black or white) who break laws, are being brutal or threaten other people (black or white). For you blacks seem to always have an excuse of past grievances. And when I point such cases to you (like with the NFAC) you go "but whites..." This is no way to hold a debate. Can you deal with the NFAC march and agenda with no reference to whites, 400 years of slavery, Ukrainian nazis, far-right militias and other distractions? Are they dangerous? Are they separatists? Are they racists? Do you condemn/support/tolerate them?

To forestall your "but whites": I condemn all similar actions by non-blacks.

[Viking]

But the current material and social arrangements remain in place, and continue to perpetuate themselves. Anxiety or alarmism over a global 'overcorrection' is more than a little premature.

The term correction makes me think about politics, whereas the analogue of a ship and its list is more concerned about the dynamic nature of the world. In the sense that one might view the end of the Roman Republic and the collapse of the Roman Empire as a consequence of the fact that things tend to drift (cf. the second law of thermodynamics) rather than two sets of specific events that may have made those outcomes inevitable.


When it comes to politics, overcorrection is always a potential issue. More immediately, though, I would look at the severe lack of vision of a future that is sustainable when it comes to inter-ethnic relations (i.e. a new permanent norm).

The current debate on the subject focuses on current grievances and immediate policies to correct those. Without plans for the future, one cannot really see what kind of societies the particpants of the debate want to create, and what trade-offs they find acceptable. Nor what presumptions they make (that a particular political ideology or religion will prevail, the future of specific ongoing trends, and so on).

To be concrete, imagine that in the year 2200, the 15 wealthiest people in the US are Uyghurs - either because of random fluctuations or because the culture of the Uyghurs makes them particularly hardworking and innovative - what will be done in such a scenario? Nothing? Generic ethnicity-specific income caps that makes it impossible in the first place?

The purpose of this example is not to seek answers to the question in this thread, but to give an example of the more general perspectives that contemporary debate does not shed a lot of light on.

Then there is the specialized language that is being used. If talk of 'white privilege' was complemented or replaced with talk of status-elevating phenotypes (or something even more general), and what difference being a majority - in the general population and in the state apparatus - makes, and you have a language that is ready to explain a greater amount of societies as well reminding people of the fact that the status quo should not be taken for granted. The refusal by a person to use more generalized language when challenged could also immediately tell you more about what kind of person it is whose opinions you have been exposed to (sometimes its the small details that expose a kook).

The miniscule threat of suffering non-white hooliganism in Sweden can't compare to the disadvantages baked in for those non-whites. It is what it is right now and one can't turn away from that truth.

The point of that story is this: what happens with inter-ethnic relations if 60% of the population in Sweden is of non-Western ethnicity, and 40% is of ethnic Swedish/European ancestry? One obvious prospect is that such attacks become much more common. In the short to medium term, that could lead to a massive increase in ethnic segregation and perhaps gated communities, but in a democratic country, the majority is capable to take the reigns as long as it is adequately united. And then what? But would democracy in Sweden even last that long in such a scenario, where the general level of trust in society could take a nose dive?

Last, I note that you use the word 'hooliganism' here, whereas you elsewhere seem comfortable with using the term 'racism'; a potential nomenclatural deviation, in other words.

The "normal" in the US is, for example, that unemployment is always twice as high among black Americans as among white Americans, but in Sweden we are talking about an unemployment level among the country's inhabitants with some form of non-European background that is so improbably high compared to unemployment among majority Swedes that it is hardly possible to calculate it in percent and even if the percentage is calculated, it becomes so incomprehensible that it is hardly an idea to do so (ie it is for some groups of non-Europeans about 1000 percent difference compared to the majority residents in).

The great irony here is that the vast majority of those people are not in Sweden because they, or their ancestors, had something to offer Sweden - they are there because Sweden had something to offer them, namely refuge. Now some of them ungratefully, or perhaps more often: many of their ungrateful descendants, run amok in Sweden. One potential lesson to take away from this is the dangers of massive immigration based on asylum claims or other highly asymmetric transactions.

At least Sweden isn't (to my knowledge) Denmark, where even the left embraces a national chauvinism somewhere between Orban's Hungary and pre-war America.

Integration has massive issues in Europe. The main concern is not finding methods that one likes, but methods that actually work. No such universal method appears to have been found yet (my prediction is of course, save for draconian ones, such methods do not exist). You might find examples of particular individuals or particular ethnic groups in particular countries that have fared well, but that doesn't solve the issues.

In more general terms, how complete can integration of an ethnic group into a society be without assimilation? What does integration even mean in this context?

Having a job is a plus in terms of integration, but if all your work colleagues discuss a topic during lunch today that is irrelevant for you due to your cultural or religious beliefs, what is that in terms of integration? And what should be done about it - weaken a source of a sense of community for the many to reduce a sense of not belonging for the few?

The future outlook remains a lot worse for black Africans anywhere than it does for whites anywhere. If we can imagine a scenario involving hundreds of millions of dead or displaced Africans in a short period of time - and this is not unlikely in our lifetimes - then we should take a step back and look at the big picture before bemoaning the potential second-order effects of this worst-in-history devastation on Europe.

If Europe turns into a mix of failed states and authoritarian states, that is not going to help sub-Saharans much, either.

[Montmorency]

The next public execution. Seems like protest bait.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ng/3427347001/

Re: The Slavs and discrimination. Maybe it's true in Europe. I know the speaking Polish in England has been a hot button issue? I have met plenty and educated, progressive European opine about Americas social miasmas and in the next breath denounce Romani in the most stark racial terms.

Crucially, Poles who are discriminated against in the UK are not being discriminated against for their whiteness.

<snip>

Gil, we have some disagreements on matters of fact and of value. You don't acknowledge the - often indisputable - truth value of the former nor identify and defend your priors on the latter. The factual disagreements ultimately center on the values here, particularly your evident feeling that black people's problems get too much attention and not enough suspicion; if you adopt a totally negationist posture it's impossible to communicate because the most basic point becomes insoluble. I hesitate to even respond to the above as it is fruitless, but I will conclude for the record if you wish to see it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And the blonde's distress and shock is a make-believe? Rock on.

You posted an episode of a reality TV show as a genuine article of crime in Africa in order to support a contention that Africa is dangerous, after asserting that Harlem is dangerous, in response to discussion of a children's poem about how dangerous Africa is, which poem was mentioned as an example of insidious racial attitudes. It is a problem for you to get exercised about the overtly play-acted distress of someone who looks like your wife and daughter but handwave the real and immemorial suffering of millions who don't.

I explained it in every post where it was mentioned. For the last time: the intensity of color shows the relative number of crimes. Since the intesity is the same for Harlem and Manhattan the number of crimes (especially felonies) is comparable. Hence, they are both dangerous.

As I have said, that is not a usage of the concept of "danger" that could be widely acceptable due to its arbitrariness and disconnection from practical experience, and I don't believe you would apply it consistently either. I could color a map of Ukraine red, or a map of the whole world red; that wouldn't provide a useful basis for interpretation. It is based on ignorance and indifference - if offered in seriousness. That you never defended or explicated it as a useful basis for anything suggests it was not offered seriously but capriciously and post hoc to the pre-established judgement of Harlem. In the end, there was simply no reason to invoke Harlem as a dangerous place - intuitively dangerous, no less - in the context of Africa, in this thread, other than that both Harlem and Africa are archetypically-scary majority black places.

To forestall your "but whites": I condemn all similar actions by non-blacks.

If you did condemn in the same measure, that would be objectionable enough when there is not substance to condemn in the same measure; imagine how depraved or lunatic it would be to respond to international censure of Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait by interjecting that we must also deplore Kuwaiti aggression against Iraq. And that would still be an overly-mild analogy, because at least Kuwait was a sovereign state with a military and financial leverage over Iraq! But you do not condemn in the same measure, you are overwhelmingly hostile to black people. You inflate trivialities to the level of urgent subjects, but denigrate the discussion of the biggest issues in material and human impact. There is something wrong with inflating trivialities to the level of urgent subjects while denigrating the discussion of the biggest issues in material and human impact.

I'm tired of repeating my stance that all people should be held responsible for their misdemeanors irrespective of the race. My distaste goes to all militias (both black or white), all rioters and looters (black or white), all policemen (black or white) who break laws, are being brutal or threaten other people (black or white). For you blacks seem to always have an excuse of past grievances. And when I point such cases to you (like with the NFAC) you go "but whites..." This is no way to hold a debate. Can you deal with the NFAC march and agenda with no reference to whites, 400 years of slavery, Ukrainian nazis, far-right militias and other distractions? Are they dangerous? Are they separatists? Are they racists? Do you condemn/support/tolerate them?

As we see here. As I said, I do not agree with the NFAC ideology, but I recognize that they are no threat to our country, society, and system of government, unlike the White militias. This is a contrast between a group aspiring to self-defense, and a group aspiring to domination. The decision - not in isolation! - to dig up Scary Black Men with Guns to hyperventilate about (while not bothering to even acknowledge the long-standing white militia who were present as counterprotesters to NFAC!!) is transparent in the context of this thread of all places.

The term correction makes me think about politics, whereas the analogue of a ship and its list is more concerned about the dynamic nature of the world. In the sense that one might view the end of the Roman Republic and the collapse of the Roman Empire as a consequence of the fact that things tend to drift (cf. the second law of thermodynamics) rather than two sets of specific events that may have made those outcomes inevitable.


When it comes to politics, overcorrection is always a potential issue. More immediately, though, I would look at the severe lack of vision of a future that is sustainable when it comes to inter-ethnic relations (i.e. a new permanent norm).

The current debate on the subject focuses on current grievances and immediate policies to correct those. Without plans for the future, one cannot really see what kind of societies the particpants of the debate want to create, and what trade-offs they find acceptable. Nor what presumptions they make (that a particular political ideology or religion will prevail, the future of specific ongoing trends, and so on).

To be concrete, imagine that in the year 2200, the 15 wealthiest people in the US are Uyghurs - either because of random fluctuations or because the culture of the Uyghurs makes them particularly hardworking and innovative - what will be done in such a scenario? Nothing? Generic ethnicity-specific income caps that makes it impossible in the first place?

The purpose of this example is not to seek answers to the question in this thread, but to give an example of the more general perspectives that contemporary debate does not shed a lot of light on.

This is all well and good, and worth thinking about, but it inherently can't remonstrate against ongoing issues or short-to-medium term solutions/policies with any specificity. I too have wondered about a longer-term and more global-general vision for securing interethnic comity, justice, and interdependence, but I am not well-read enough on the issues; I would expect these questions have received attention yet have remained largely abstract academic discussions that have not yet filtered down into public consciousness. As with questions of capitalist dominance and climate sustainability I am constitutionally pessimistic about the eschaton.

Then there is the specialized language that is being used. If talk of 'white privilege' was complemented or replaced with talk of status-elevating phenotypes (or something even more general), and what difference being a majority - in the general population and in the state apparatus - makes, and you have a language that is ready to explain a greater amount of societies as well reminding people of the fact that the status quo should not be taken for granted. The refusal by a person to use more generalized language when challenged could also immediately tell you more about what kind of person it is whose opinions you have been exposed to (sometimes its the small details that expose a kook).

White privilege is a concept that applies to whiteness and its interactions. The more general concept is privilege, and in an intersectional framework can be identified (e.g. global light-skin privilege, Han Chinese privilege, citizenship privilege, etc.) in any appropriate context. If you don't like the term "privilege" you can substitute some alternative for clarification, such as 'relational or structural advantage of demographic feature' - but then it becomes evident how hard it is to devise terminology that is accurate, precise, and extensible, but not clunky or confusing or even emotionally burdensome.

The point of that story is this: what happens with inter-ethnic relations if 60% of the population in Sweden is of non-Western ethnicity, and 40% is of ethnic Swedish/European ancestry? One obvious prospect is that such attacks become much more common. In the short to medium term, that could lead to a massive increase in ethnic segregation and perhaps gated communities, but in a democratic country, the majority is capable to take the reigns as long as it is adequately united. And then what? But would democracy in Sweden even last that long in such a scenario, where the general level of trust in society could take a nose dive?

A mutually-beneficial arrangement is one where structural inequities facing various immigrant groups are dissolved and individual attitudes of mutual respect between all ethnic demographics are promoted. Yes, a prerequisite of this would be considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations. Established populations will almost inherently have an advantage over newcomers in both accumulated wealth and in opportunities to accumulate wealth, even without barriers of law or discrimination. For that reason it is unsurprising that immigrants who arrive with prior wealth or professional/academic bona fides tend to do well as cohorts. But this isn't characteristic of most immigrants where they aren't subject to strict qualifications for entry, and that kind of regime is bad for its exclusivity and for commoditizing immigrants. Maybe the reduced economic prospects of Anglosphere white youth worldwide are a factor in their relative comfort with the presence of non-white ethnics?

(As an intriguing aside, from purely anecdotal Internet evidence, African Americans who have traveled to Europe tend to report strong positive experiences about the apparent lack of racism in their relations with ethnic Germans as compared to white Americans or other Europeans. I don't know how this scales in representativeness, or what Afro-Germans might think about it, but it's something I noticed.)

Last, I note that you use the word 'hooliganism' here, whereas you elsewhere seem comfortable with using the term 'racism'; a potential nomenclatural deviation, in other words.

If the negative effects of immigrant hooliganism for ethnic Swedes are as yet minimal, the effects of immigrant racism (as superordinate to targeted crime) against them must be even less. I chose my words to be more accommodating!

The great irony here is that the vast majority of those people are not in Sweden because they, or their ancestors, had something to offer Sweden - they are there because Sweden had something to offer them, namely refuge. Now some of them ungratefully, or perhaps more often: many of their ungrateful descendants, run amok in Sweden. One potential lesson to take away from this is the dangers of massive immigration based on asylum claims or other highly asymmetric transactions.

I certainly hope no country would establish an immigration regime on the basis of some gratefulness quotient. If you want human capital you have to provide for it. That's the hard thing; it's easy to perpetuate a mudsill. Adopting refugees is to an extent an obligation of wealth, not for Instagrammable bragging rights.

Integration has massive issues in Europe. The main concern is not finding methods that one likes, but methods that actually work. No such universal method appears to have been found yet (my prediction is of course, save for draconian ones, such methods do not exist). You might find examples of particular individuals or particular ethnic groups in particular countries that have fared well, but that doesn't solve the issues.

In more general terms, how complete can integration of an ethnic group into a society be without assimilation? What does integration even mean in this context?

There can't be integration, in the sense of a stable egalitarian flow of people through institutions, without actually undertaking the effort to resolve inequalities. White national groups are disintegrating too!

Assimilation in the sense of mutual cultural influence happens by default to some extent, at least in the American experience. It's probably identifiable in any country, but the tendency is overwhelmingly for assimilation to be uni-directional and defensive. To semi-ironically appropriate Nazi terminology, the Anglo and European cultures of the United States are uniquely Africanized. But assimilation is totally distinct from integration.

Structural reform to reduce inequality, short of big-ticket items like wealth redistribution or reparations, is always going to be easier than solving the problem of affective or personal bias. The modern racial framework provides too many hooks for persistent racism, which even in the US has been grindingly slow to recede. To the extent it does recede I'm not sure how this kind of cultural change is generated other than very long common exposure coupled with at least some legal framework discouraging racism. The state matters somewhat, but it only really lays groundwork for real change to my mind; public opposition can and will sink a policy that purports to be decisive (e.g. school integration; schools in America are more segregated than ever!) Interracial marriage has pretty much always been accepted by most African Americans, but Americans overall only polled at majority approval (tolerance?) of interracial marriage from the Clinton administration! A Supreme Court case didn't create that - but it was probably necessary.

Having a job is a plus in terms of integration, but if all your work colleagues discuss a topic during lunch today that is irrelevant for you due to your cultural or religious beliefs, what is that in terms of integration? And what should be done about it - weaken a source of a sense of community for the many to reduce a sense of not belonging for the few?

While power balance is always a sticky consideration, and there is some value in preserving the human diversity of smaller groups, I don't in abstract recognize a right of conservatives in an ethnic group to never have to witness change under any circumstances.

I don't believe all your questions can ever be resolved on a so-called "national" basis, country by country, just as it's obvious that the great historic struggles over economic organization and sociopolitical power can no longer be contended with in a totally meta-pluralistic dispensation, which has been the implicit arrangement forever - there has to be a transition toward recognizing a transnational polity, both because a country is a jurisdiction but not much more, because corporate jurisdictions are not substantively different from those of organized crime syndicates, because all Earth-dwellers owe something to one another, and because we can realize a greater good by equalizing each other psychologically and materially (toward prosperity and flourishing).

The greatest obstacle, aside from hostile vested interests, oligarchs and plutocrats, is the existence of conservatives who really do hold fundamentally-different values as to the Good and the proper distribution of Things and People and the legitimate means and ends of power, and with whom a tense coexistence on the global stage is probably no longer sustainable in the 21st century.

This essay contains some promising concepts, but it's pretty much the only reflection on this topic that I've read.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-cont...arity-2015.pdf

If Europe turns into a mix of failed states and authoritarian states, that is not going to help sub-Saharans much, either.

This causal structure in a lot of contexts sounds like an argument for proactivity to me.

[Gilrandir]

your evident feeling that black people's problems get too much attention and not enough suspicion;

That is totally wrong. I maintain that black people's problems are often described with downplaying the negative effects which accompany (are caused by?) protests and racial issues.

imagine how depraved or lunatic it would be to respond to international censure of Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait by interjecting that we must also deplore Kuwaiti aggression against Iraq.

If the latter really happened we must. But since it didn't your comparison is lame.

As we see here. As I said, I do not agree with the NFAC ideology, but I recognize that they are no threat to our country, society, and system of government, unlike the White militias.

This is the difference between us. I recognize BOTH as threats. You tend to condone the NFAC just because they are black. Despite the fact that they shot three of their own number mishadling the guns. The latter of course represents no threat to peaceful population (both black and white) whatsoever.

This is a contrast between a group aspiring to self-defense, and a group aspiring to domination.

So NFAC who want to create Texas for blacks is self-defense, and white couple brandishing weapons on their front porch is domination?

The decision - not in isolation! - to dig up Scary Black Men with Guns to hyperventilate about (while not bothering to even acknowledge the long-standing white militia who were present as counterprotesters to NFAC!!) is transparent in the context of this thread of all places.

I condemn both. Unlike you. For me it doesn't matter whose bullet may find me. For you being shot by blacks seems somehow more appropriate.


Generally, Americans шарахаются из крайности в крайность. First you elect a quiet and inelligent black president and then you go for an arrogant primitive redneck with the grace and tact of an elephant in china shop. First you consider homosexualism a crime and then you proclaim it the thing to be proud of. First you keep black people in slavery, segregate them, KKK them, enforce Jim Crow laws with fire hoses and then you fall into another extremity and endorse paramilitary black units with automatic weaponry marching along peaceful neighborhoods. Now you are mortally afraid to say anything that might be considered as not fitting the current trend and consequently stigmatized as racist.

Learn to find a balanced attitude seeing all merits and demerits of facts and events.

[Montmorency]

Jacob Blake, the police shooting victim, has so far not died as expected, but is partially paralyzed.

As expected, there have been large protests over the incident. There has been right-wing militia involvement and protesters have been killed by them. The police seem to approve of the militias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/u...cob-blake.html
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/202...wisconsin.html

https://twitter.com/dhookstead/statu...48642916323330 [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/shmeckeljuice/st...08055458582529 [VIDEO]

https://twitter.com/swampthingx/stat...95139283980289
https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/stat...00904711647237
https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/st...69264568586240 [VIDEO]

This is Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, an Illinois resident who was just charged with first-degree murder of two people last night in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This teen, whose social media history is full of misogyny and white supremacy, had easy access to an AR-15. In recent months, gun violence has broken out at protests against violence against Black Americans by police. In Albuquerque, a man was shot and wounded in June during a protest. In Portland, protests were escalated this weekend by white supremacists with rifles and handguns.

https://twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/sta...32736790077440 [VIDEO]

Cell phone video shows Kenosha Wisconsin police officers in an military vehicle telling armed White militia members they "appreciate them being there" and giving them bottled water; while in the background cops can be heard ordering protestors to disperse. Here, a militia member says cops told them they would "push" the protestors towards them because they knew they could handle them.

https://twitter.com/nick_w_estes/sta...30899701587969

Jacob Blake got shot seven times in the back for breaking up a fight. A little racist white kid guns down three people, killing one [two now], with dozens of witnesses and walks through a police line unharmed, in the same goddamn city.

https://twitter.com/Rachel__Nichols/...78959206662145

[Montmorency]

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...uding-homicide

Some graphic images of the Boy Who Lived third shooting victim, non-fatal. Mr. 'Good-guy-with-a-gun' tried to confront the young murderer Mr. Ritterkreuz Rittenhouse with his pistol but was shot for his trouble.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/videos...gs-in-kenosha/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEWCtCGFgc_/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[rory_20_uk]

Finally evidence that "the only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun" since after all whoever is alive at the end will be of the view they were the good guy and were being threatened by a terrorist with a gun.

[Gilrandir]

Some graphic images of the Boy Who Lived third shooting victim, non-fatal. Mr. 'Good-guy-with-a-gun' tried to confront the young murderer Mr. Ritterkreuz Rittenhouse with his pistol but was shot for his trouble.

Events in Wisconsin only convince me that my cautious attitude to BLM protests was justified.

Police brutality was (and probably is) also an issue in Ukraine. However, the reaction of people was different: they visited their indignance upon the cops themselves, not upon the innocent fellow villagers and their property.

During Maidan, protesters never smashed widows or burned cars. That is, if they attacked buildings those were administrative ones or offices of the ruling party. Otherwise, you could sit in a Kyiv cafe drinking coffee and watch protesters march along the street outside. They never tried to damage anything just for the sake of damage (or loot). Because they realiazed that all such businesses and shops were ultimately US. And THEM against who they were fighting were the authorities. That is why the owners of such businesses often donated money and food to them or invited them for a free meal.

What do we see in the USA? The police is being brutal to people. Do people surround police departments, smoke 'em out and hang the bastards on the lamp posts along the road? That is an exaggeration, of course, but even if that happened I would understand that (if not support).

No, protesters choose a different modus operandi - to target the innocent and their property. What is the fault of shop and car owners whose property has been burned or looted? To be located in a wrong place at a wrong time? Perhaps they are as indignant about the police brutality as the protesters. Some of them may be blacks, by the way. But protesters unleash their rage on those who have nothing to do with what they are fighting against thus turning them into adversaries.

That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

[ReluctantSamurai]

There are so many things wrong with all of that, but I'm going to just focus on one:

That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

First of all, vigilantism is against the law in the US. Why? People like Kyle Rittenhouse. Unless your definition of neighbor is vastly different in Ukraine, I'd hardly call driving 20 miles across statelines (and breaking the law by being under-aged for carrying an AR-15) to protect someone else's property as justified. This isn't 1776, and it's the very reason why the police force came into being, who, if they had been doing their jobs, would have quelled the looting and arson. Yes, people have a right to defend their property, but as we've seen, it can be taken to absurdity (as in St. Louis Ken and Karen). And of course you are making the same mostly asinine conclusion as our own president----that if the BLM is involved, it's gotta be the Antifa "terrorists" who are responsible, instead of mostly far right-wing supremacists looking for an excuse to brandish their toys and go out and shoot someone who doesn't have the same skin color as their own.

Are there people participating in the BLM movement that are bad, violent, aggressive people? Yes. Has anything real been done about why the BLM is protesting in the first place? No. Just another unjustified shooting of a black man, to add to a too long list of such shootings. I think you still haven't heard the message, yet...

And you are simply ignoring the issue that the police themselves can be part of the problem:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/...w-enforcement/

Reforming police, as it turns out, is a lot harder than reforming the military, because of the decentralized way in which the thousands of police departments across the country operate, the historical affinity of certain police departments with the same racial ideologies espoused by extremists, and an even broader reluctance to do much about it.

The quickest way to put an end to this kind of situation? Actually DO something about the underlying reasons it's occurring in the first place

[Gilrandir]

There are so many things wrong with all of that,

Then deal with this vast number piecemeal. Otherwise it is just a blunt denial.

First of all, vigilantism is against the law in the US. Why? People like Kyle Rittenhouse. Unless your definition of neighbor is vastly different in Ukraine, I'd hardly call driving 20 miles across statelines (and breaking the law by being under-aged for carrying an AR-15) to protect someone else's property as justified. This isn't 1776, and it's the very reason why the police force came into being, who, if they had been doing their jobs, would have quelled the looting and arson. Yes, people have a right to defend their property

I'm not speaking of nutjobs who travel miles away just to feel the thrill. I'm speaking about people who come to defend their lives and property locally. If the police can't do that they have to take the law into their hands, be those hands black or white. In the last sentence you confirmed what I said.

it can be taken to absurdity (as in St. Louis Ken and Karen).

Everything can be taken to absurdity. Like BLM protesters do when they turn a political issue into trivial looting and arsoning.

And of course you are making the same mostly asinine conclusion as our own president----that if the BLM is involved, it's gotta be the Antifa "terrorists" who are responsible,

I would kindly ask you to cite my words where ANY TERRORISTS are mentioned. They are typical depredating mob, talking of terrorists is ridiculous. As is your president.

instead of mostly far right-wing supremacists looking for an excuse to brandish their toys and go out and shoot someone who doesn't have the same skin color as their own.

There some, I'm sure. But as long as they just protect their property and lives, I don't mind. When they start hunting people down because of the skin color, hang them on the lamp posts.

Are there people participating in the BLM movement that are bad, violent, aggressive people? Yes. Has anything real been done about why the BLM is protesting in the first place? No.

I'll tell you what should have been done. First, BLM leaders should address all protesters and say that marauding isn't what they are after, they want justice and reforms, so please stop targeting innocent people and their property. If rioters don't listen they should disown them and say that from now on BLM movement has nothing to do with the depredating mobs. And ask authorities to stop violence.

Second, authorities should convene a round table with all BLM leaders and have their demands and conditions laid out on paper fair and square and start discussing what can be done at once, what will take longer, and what is impossible to accept.

Otherwise, both sides will see only their side of the story and nothing will change.

And you are simply ignoring the issue that the police themselves can be part of the problem

I'm fully aware of it.

[Crandar]

Any thoughts on this from our American members. I am not really qualified to judge the validity of his arguments. I'd personally believe that the shooter could not appeal to self-defense, because he had committed a felony by carrying a forbidden weapon. Also, I'm not sure about the circumstances of the second killing, according to the New York Times, shots were heard, before the militia member turned around and shot the protester at the head.

[Viking]

This is all well and good, and worth thinking about, but it inherently can't remonstrate against ongoing issues or short-to-medium term solutions/policies with any specificity. I too have wondered about a longer-term and more global-general vision for securing interethnic comity, justice, and interdependence, but I am not well-read enough on the issues; I would expect these questions have received attention yet have remained largely abstract academic discussions that have not yet filtered down into public consciousness. As with questions of capitalist dominance and climate sustainability I am constitutionally pessimistic about the eschaton.

Some of the motivation behind the recent unrest in the US is rather radical, and radical solutions can easily affect the long term, and in a big way. It pays to think long term and sustainability from the outset.

White privilege is a concept that applies to whiteness and its interactions. The more general concept is privilege, and in an intersectional framework can be identified (e.g. global light-skin privilege, Han Chinese privilege, citizenship privilege, etc.) in any appropriate context. If you don't like the term "privilege" you can substitute some alternative for clarification, such as 'relational or structural advantage of demographic feature' - but then it becomes evident how hard it is to devise terminology that is accurate, precise, and extensible, but not clunky or confusing or even emotionally burdensome.

Ultimately, it is actually having an understanding of the situation that I have in mind. Terms that are repeated over and over tend to take on a life of their own, and become divorced from the more general concepts they are instances of. In a similar manner to the way that the bald eagle in an American context presumably won't invoke the more generic concepts of 'bird' and 'eagle' just as readily as a white-tailed eagle would. To some extent, this is unavoidable; but laying the foundation for cargo cults should be much more avoidable.

A mutually-beneficial arrangement is one where structural inequities facing various immigrant groups are dissolved and individual attitudes of mutual respect between all ethnic demographics are promoted. Yes, a prerequisite of this would be considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations. Established populations will almost inherently have an advantage over newcomers in both accumulated wealth and in opportunities to accumulate wealth, even without barriers of law or discrimination. For that reason it is unsurprising that immigrants who arrive with prior wealth or professional/academic bona fides tend to do well as cohorts. But this isn't characteristic of most immigrants where they aren't subject to strict qualifications for entry, and that kind of regime is bad for its exclusivity and for commoditizing immigrants. Maybe the reduced economic prospects of Anglosphere white youth worldwide are a factor in their relative comfort with the presence of non-white ethnics?

You know, politics has to basic aspects:

1. The subjective or philosophical part: what you want society to be like
2. The objective or empirical part: what is most likely to happen

I don't think you are doing enough to adress the second part. Is the Swedish state actually going to do "considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations"? How are they (in a realistic manner) going to raise the money? And is pouring money on this problem actually going to solve it - do you have examples where such a strategy has been successful on a nationwide scale?

If the negative effects of immigrant hooliganism for ethnic Swedes are as yet minimal, the effects of immigrant racism (as superordinate to targeted crime) against them must be even less. I chose my words to be more accommodating!

What stands out to me is what such incidents could mean for the future, cf. the paragraph above the comment on terminology. The anti-social behaviour that constitutes hooliganism does not have any inherent direction, so then that term obscures an important connection with other similar events (namely the ethnicity profile) in a way that 'racism' would not.

While we are on the topic of Sweden, more happy news from Thursday: it turns out that more than 50 Swedish organisations with radical Islamists in their leadership have received around 1 billion SEK ($116 million) during the last five years.

I certainly hope no country would establish an immigration regime on the basis of some gratefulness quotient.

From an ethical point of view, if descendants of mistreaters owe something to the descendants of the mistreated (reparations), then through symmetry the descendants of helped people would owe something to the descendants of the helpers.

At any rate, if the asylum claims are taken at face value (and unless the bar for being granted asylum is very low), then from a gratefulness is certainly an aspect that applies here, politically relevant or not.

If you want human capital you have to provide for it. That's the hard thing; it's easy to perpetuate a mudsill. Adopting refugees is to an extent an obligation of wealth, not for Instagrammable bragging rights.

In Europe, at least, those who support more non-Western immigration tend to argue among one of two lines:

1. Things aren't that bad; there isn't any big issue to solve
2. The immigrants just need to be integrated better into society (with the how part not receiving much attention); and/or as generations pass, it will happen more or less by itself, so no need to sweat it.

But assimilation is totally distinct from integration.

By definition it is, but if integration is supposed to be a goal to aim for that is good enough when it comes to the topic of immigration, the question is how much assimilation is required before the integration is good enough (i.e. I assume that in practice, integration often means taking up elements of the other culture rather than merely adapting to its presence and requirements without actually mirroring it).

Interracial marriage has pretty much always been accepted by most African Americans, but Americans overall only polled at majority approval (tolerance?) of interracial marriage from the Clinton administration! A Supreme Court case didn't create that - but it was probably necessary.

Then the situation in Europe is reversed in many cases, when the woman is non-Western and the man is European. Maybe you can find some gender-related differences in the US, too.

I don't believe all your questions can ever be resolved on a so-called "national" basis, country by country, just as it's obvious that the great historic struggles over economic organization and sociopolitical power can no longer be contended with in a totally meta-pluralistic dispensation, which has been the implicit arrangement forever - there has to be a transition toward recognizing a transnational polity, both because a country is a jurisdiction but not much more, because corporate jurisdictions are not substantively different from those of organized crime syndicates, because all Earth-dwellers owe something to one another, and because we can realize a greater good by equalizing each other psychologically and materially (toward prosperity and flourishing).

A democratically minded international order requires that the democratic countries together are stronger than the non-democratic ones. Individual countries must work well before an international order can work well. Policies that undermine the trust in democratic institutions in individual countries will undermine a world order that is supportive of democracy.

It's not an authoritarian turn in countries like Hungary and Poland that should be worrying, because democracy likely never became firmly embedded in the local culture in these two countries in the first place. It's the countries where the democratic institution has long and very firm roots that should be in focus, because if democracy falters here, it could be wiped out in its entirety for a long time.

Now if you unleash demographic revolutions in such countries, then an obvious possibility, even from a very superficial perspective, is that the local culture experiences upheaval; and one element of the culture that could be turned on its head is the trust in democracy and a cooperative society. What has been learnt over many generations can be unlearnt.

This causal structure in a lot of contexts sounds like an argument for proactivity to me.

Indeed.

[ReluctantSamurai]

That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

Let me introduce you to these "militia" groups:

3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, Hutaree, and the Michigan Militia, to name a few. All are far right-wing radicals, or support other groups who are. The 3 Percenters and the Oath Keepers are probably the most violent, but for all these groups, firepower is the first and final answer to everything. Yep, "Very Fine People".

No, protesters choose a different modus operandi - to target the innocent and their property.

OK, rioters then. You've no evidence that these 'rioters' are from the BLM movement. In fact, if Kenosha is any indication, the 'rioters' are often the "militia" themselves:

https://www.newsweek.com/kenosha-mil...cebook-1528529

"There were lots of comments like that in the event," she said. "People talking about being 'locked and loaded.' People asking what types of weapons and people responding to 'bring everything.'"

And...

First, BLM leaders should address all protesters and say that marauding isn't what they are after, they want justice and reforms, so please stop targeting innocent people and their property. If rioters don't listen they should disown them and say that from now on BLM movement has nothing to do with the depredating mobs. And ask authorities to stop violence.

Been done. Weak, half-assed responses from some, totally ignored by most. The officers who killed Breonna Taylor haven't even been charged and it's been over 5 months....POC have been "asking authorities to stop violence" for decades. Time to stop asking nicely......

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Part of the issue at hand -- and part of the motivation for looting and vandalism -- is that it is NOT simply the police acting in a racist manner all too often, but the entirety of the system that is perceived to have been established so as to prevent advancement and opportunity and enact second class citizenship for Americans of African descent. So, looting is, on some level, a form of protest and attack on the extent system in the minds of some of those involved. Add in opportunists seeking to steal when little can be done to prevent it and you end up with the looting commonly associated with racial tension riots here in the USA.

While I don't think looting will accomplish the goal of equality, it is evident that patiently waiting for the powers-who-are to change things hasn't worked very well for the last half century. Change occurs when protests FORCE our majority (biggest plurality now, I think, but majority in the sense of being the dominant co-culture) to actually think about what the flip is happening and why it is wrong and actually threaten the jobs of our pols -- who then work hard to try to be on the right side of history as they 'always wanted to.'

Yes, that last is tongue in cheek.

[Gilrandir]

Let me introduce you to these "militia" groups:

3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, Hutaree, and the Michigan Militia, to name a few. All are far right-wing radicals, or support other groups who are. The 3 Percenters and the Oath Keepers are probably the most violent, but for all these groups, firepower is the first and final answer to everything. Yep, "Very Fine People".

I have no idea who are those capitalized. But, like I said, if they limit their activities to protecting their families and property, their ideology doens't matter to me. When they start excessive actions, hang them on the lamp posts. Next to looters.

OK, rioters then. You've no evidence that these 'rioters' are from the BLM movement. In fact, if Kenosha is any indication, the 'rioters' are often the "militia" themselves:

I have no evidence that militia consist of exclusively 3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, Hutaree, and the Michigan Militia - only your claim. But if rioters have nothing to do with BLM, why didn't the latter say it?

Been done. Weak, half-assed responses from some, totally ignored by most. The officers who killed Breonna Taylor haven't even been charged and it's been over 5 months....POC have been "asking authorities to stop violence" for decades. Time to stop asking nicely......

I mean asking authorities to put an end to rioting.

As for stopping the POLICE violence: ask in whatever way you think appropriate. But ask the AUTHORITIES! Not try to damage innocent people's property! Don't the rioters realize that they instill negative atttitude to their political agenda (if there is any except looting) by targeting the innocent?

And what about BLM disowning rioters? Been done?

Part of the issue at hand -- and part of the motivation for looting and vandalism -- is that it is NOT simply the police acting in a racist manner all too often, but the entirety of the system that is perceived to have been established so as to prevent advancement and opportunity and enact second class citizenship for Americans of African descent. So, looting is, on some level, a form of protest and attack on the extent system in the minds of some of those involved. Add in opportunists seeking to steal when little can be done to prevent it and you end up with the looting commonly associated with racial tension riots here in the USA.

Many social groups around the world (and sometimes all of them together) come out to voice their resentment. But, somehow, many of them keep within decency limits like it was in the 1960s in the MLK epoch, in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, in Ukraine in 2004 and 2013/14, in Armenia in 2018, in Hong Kong in 2019, in Belarus just now and even during Occupy Wall street events. By decency limits I mean fighting the authorities, not their fellow citizens. How come current tensions are so mistargeted?

While I don't think looting will accomplish the goal of equality, it is evident that patiently waiting for the powers-who-are to change things hasn't worked very well for the last half century. Change occurs when protests FORCE our majority (biggest plurality now, I think, but majority in the sense of being the dominant co-culture) to actually think about what the flip is happening and why it is wrong and actually threaten the jobs of our pols -- who then work hard to try to be on the right side of history as they 'always wanted to.'

Yes, that last is tongue in cheek.

It is indeed a strange way to accomplish ANY political goal. It is like your neighbor's dog killed your cat, so you go along the street smashing windows in entire neighborhood and carrying out people's TVs to take revenge a upon the cat-killer. Would those people support you in the feud? I doubt it strongly.

[Montmorency]

During Maidan, protesters never smashed widows or burned cars. That is, if they attacked buildings those were administrative ones or offices of the ruling party. Otherwise, you could sit in a Kyiv cafe drinking coffee and watch protesters march along the street outside. They never tried to damage anything just for the sake of damage (or loot). Because they realiazed that all such businesses and shops were ultimately US. And THEM against who they were fighting were the authorities. That is why the owners of such businesses often donated money and food to them or invited them for a free meal.

Did you support the removal of the Yanukovych government? If so, you would no longer have endorsed that objective had there been, to your knowledge, any private property damage? If not, why not? If so, why is a revolutionary overthrow of government without apparent property damage more legitimate than a protest against police abuse with any such damage?

What do we see in the USA? The police is being brutal to people. Do people surround police departments, smoke 'em out and hang the bastards on the lamp posts along the road? That is an exaggeration, of course, but even if that happened I would understand that (if not support). No, protesters choose a different modus operandi - to target the innocent and their property.

That is not true. There are very few protesters who advocate property destruction as a political tactic. The most famous property damage of the June protests was against police stations and vehicles and government property. The second-most famous instance was, and this says something bad about us and the media, the burgling of fancy stores in midtown/lower Manhattan (which police refused to stop). Much of the protests in Kenosha were taking place at or near a court house. Are you more comfortable with that?

But protesters unleash their rage on those who have nothing to do with what they are fighting against thus turning them into adversaries.

Then condemn those people if you must - but the underlying issue here is that you have always resisted the aims of even the peaceful protesters.

That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

While this is no surprising revelation, you would accordingly be on the side of fascist thugs who enter communities to perpetrate aggression and terror and have likely never protected themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arson in their lives - all after you freaked out at the very existence of black men with guns. I'm on the side of those demanding law and order and justice.

In all the furor, the people who claim their overriding social priority as the condemnation of vandalism never seem to ask where the police are. Why have police consistently concentrated and instigated force against demonstrators while deliberately ceding city streets to 'marauders?' Why do police act in ways that promote violence and chaos while repressing people's rights? It's almost like police don't protect people and communities, in which case it should be fairly easy for looter-panic and police reform to find common ground. The local government promptly securing the arrest and indictment of the police from the inciting incident, the Blake shooting (they were only placed them on administrative leave AFAIK), would have been an easy way to defuse unrest, and it would have been the right thing to do. If there were an actual interest in resolving and averting the ingredients of unrest, clear answers are available. But altogether too many seem perfectly glad to take burned storefronts as a price and opportunity for encouraging state and private violence against disfavored demographics.

Beyond all that, I can't help but notice a trend or East-Slavic fetish, at least in connection to America society, for the idea of lethal violence in defense of "svoju chastnoju sobstvennost (one's private property)." Whereas I believe even most Americans would categorically disapprove of instigating lethal violence in the absence of any threat to persons, and I'm curious as to whether such a thing is even legal under any circumstances in Russia or Ukraine.

Any thoughts on this from our American members. I am not really qualified to judge the validity of his arguments. I'd personally believe that the shooter could not appeal to self-defense, because he had committed a felony by carrying a forbidden weapon. Also, I'm not sure about the circumstances of the second killing, according to the New York Times, shots were heard, before the militia member turned around and shot the protester at the head.

I posted a bunch of links to videos of the night, but here's a basic summary of events involving Rittenhouse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/u...ing-video.html

Can you summarize the embedded Youtuber's perspective? I'm not watching an hour of that.

Tangentially, something I've only seen remarked on is passing is the elevated tension throughout the Rittenhouse incidents created by the peripheral gunfire coming from unknown individuals. It's easy to see how such an environment could have contributed to the mindsets of the principals on the scene. In the first scene, when Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, the protester, were alone in a parking lot, Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag in Rittenhouse's direction. Suddenly, someone else opened fire in the distance in their general direction, Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's rifle, and the latter fired four times, hitting Rosenbaum in the head. In the most charitable reading for the killer, the gunshot could have been a trigger that led both of the principals to believe and act as though they were under attack. (And during the second altercation between Rittenhouse and protesters trying to subdue him, there were multiple gunshots during the fracas that do not appear to have come from either Rittenhouse or Grosskreutz (Ritterkreutz!))

It further goes to show that having lots of guns on the street is the enemy of civil peace.

Part of the issue at hand -- and part of the motivation for looting and vandalism -- is that it is NOT simply the police acting in a racist manner all too often, but the entirety of the system that is perceived to have been established so as to prevent advancement and opportunity and enact second class citizenship for Americans of African descent. So, looting is, on some level, a form of protest and attack on the extent system in the minds of some of those involved. Add in opportunists seeking to steal when little can be done to prevent it and you end up with the looting commonly associated with racial tension riots here in the USA

Just a side note, but Kenosha is estimated to be 80% white, 10% black, so (unsurprisingly) most of the videos you'll see from events there depict largely white people. It matters not just for curbing the stereotype of black people as inherently criminal or disorderly, but for the fact of unprecedented white support for and engagement with the movement. In the 1960s you only really saw tens of thousands of whites marching with blacks, now it's millions. (Tangentially, the success of the 1960s civil rights movement disproportionate to its often-small scale might be what has led to the overpopularization of small but persistent protest and activist groups through the past half-century, the sort that no one ever hears about because what was novel in the 1960s no longer made the same impact tactically as the system and culture adjusted. A few hundred protesters in the 60s could get you on one of the 3, or whatever, national TV channels! Now you'll be lucky to break local news. Unless you're a right-wing group that is.)

Some of the motivation behind the recent unrest in the US is rather radical, and radical solutions can easily affect the long term, and in a big way. It pays to think long term and sustainability from the outset.

If you're referring to the old far-left standbys of prison and police abolition, well, white people were singing about that a hundred years ago. I think proponents might argue that (re)introducing the concepts to public discourse is exactly what will potentiate serious thought on long-term and sustainable reform and implementation. At any rate, I'm happy to have the space in the Overton Window.

Ultimately, it is actually having an understanding of the situation that I have in mind. Terms that are repeated over and over tend to take on a life of their own, and become divorced from the more general concepts they are instances of. In a similar manner to the way that the bald eagle in an American context presumably won't invoke the more generic concepts of 'bird' and 'eagle' just as readily as a white-tailed eagle would. To some extent, this is unavoidable; but laying the foundation for cargo cults should be much more avoidable.

As I mentioned in the response to Seamus, it is easy for ideas or trends to become divorced from their original context. Cargo cults are imitation of visible, perhaps epiphenomenal, manifestation without association to underlying causality. So for a lot of groups, the formula is that X succeeded in the 1960s, if we do X, we'll succeed, but the contemporary situation may be unsuited. There is certainly a tendency for left-wing narrativization ito become a cargo cult-like cultural memory of past glories, which we need to move past. But the thing you should keep in mind is that left-wing elements have had very little power to implement their vision, so what you have is a very fragmented intellectual landscape filtered through the symbolic elements mainstream politicians are most willing to coopt. There is no real consensus-making force to create the kind of rigorous standardization you seem to be hinting at, which to a certain degree has probably never been achieved in any context. And ultimately, the problems you adumbrate are the ones we should prefer to have to the ones we do have. No one can afford to wait upon the auspicious advent of the Ultimate Final Solution to X.

I don't think you are doing enough to adress the second part. Is the Swedish state actually going to do "considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations"? How are they (in a realistic manner) going to raise the money? And is pouring money on this problem actually going to solve it - do you have examples where such a strategy has been successful on a nationwide scale?

Why are the failures of state and society to be loaded onto the most marginal, since that's logically what you're pointing to?

I'm not aware of any comprehensive national program to uplift minorities in the West, though there might have been something vaguely gesturing at that in the big Communist countries, PRC and USSR, but on a smaller scale I've been aware of plenty of efforts targeting disadvantaged groups that bear measurable success. One of the most powerful in the long-term, at least in terms that aren't strictly material, is school integration (the material component is indirect, in the upgraded services and education non-whites experience). The practical difficulty with this policy is that it is enormously unpopular with white parents, even liberal ones, who in extremity have, and have had, a strong tendency to relocate to evade integration. This is a problem with white parents!

Obviously any reform of contemporary society, with respect to the coexistence of ethnic groups or anything else, demands an economic reorganization towards decreasing, not increasing, inequality, and the downward redistribution of wealth and resources. For now this priority remains much more difficult to achieve in an equitable and sustainable way on a global scale than in the wealthy countries collectively - so maybe we should start there.

What stands out to me is what such incidents could mean for the future, cf. the paragraph above the comment on terminology. The anti-social behaviour that constitutes hooliganism does not have any inherent direction, so then that term obscures an important connection with other similar events (namely the ethnicity profile) in a way that 'racism' would not.

It's just, you're worried about the nebulous possibility that non-ethnic Swedes will soon both gain enough social power and ethnic animosity toward ethnic Swedes (but not whites in general?) as to distinctly marginalize ethnic Swedes, but not very worried about the racism and disadvantages faced by those populations up through the present. The former future remains a fever dream, while the latter has a definite and ongoing continuation.

At any rate, the first can be foreclosed definitively by addressing the latter - further highlighting the misalignment of priorities.

While we are on the topic of Sweden, more happy news from Thursday: it turns out that more than 50 Swedish organisations with radical Islamists in their leadership have received around 1 billion SEK ($116 million) during the last five years.

What do you mean by "received?" The article conveys that these are legally-valid organizations that receive some sort of payment for "business" from the state, which I assume is in the context of a Swedish educational system where private schools are subsidized by the state. Am I off-base or missing something?

From an ethical point of view, if descendants of mistreaters owe something to the descendants of the mistreated (reparations), then through symmetry the descendants of helped people would owe something to the descendants of the helpers.

Well, not really if one accepts that people deserve to be treated well but don't deserve to be mistreated. Anyway, to my mind the most significant aspect of a program of reparations is not to calculate and indemnify past damages so much as to reform the present society and ameliorate its inequities and flaws. Because a "nation" or other demographic as a legal fiction is more difficult to construct and treat with than the streamlined package of a state or defined organization, it's much easier to engage legal and compensatory relations between governmental and corporate entities than with demographic groups (e.g. compensating land theft from individual Amerindian tribes would itself be almost impossible compared to compensating all Amerindians as a class); on the other hand, it is also relatively easy to take stock of what the contemporary social landscape is, and how we got there, and develop an affirmative plan to cure its deficiencies. For a better world to be attained, we really do have to conclusively resolve and banish all the preexisting conflicts, up to the level of interstate relations, and equalize interpersonal relations. Aksai Chin and discrimination against alloethnics are all pieces of the human millstone, and cannot really be dissolved unilaterally or bilaterally but within the framework (long-term, as you please) of a new world order.

In Europe, at least, those who support more non-Western immigration tend to argue among one of two lines:

1. Things aren't that bad; there isn't any big issue to solve
2. The immigrants just need to be integrated better into society (with the how part not receiving much attention); and/or as generations pass, it will happen more or less by itself, so no need to sweat it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to both those views, but leftists (and this is better-developed in the Anglosphere), as well as hardcore libertarians (also more prominent in Anglosphere), would make the following arguments, or at least the libertarians would agree on the first:

1. States have very limited inherent authority to traduce the external and internal movement of people, because people have a natural right not to be traduced in their movements.
2. While the utilitarian balance for widespread migration is at worst unclear or contingent from the perspective of citizens (though it can also be very productive), there is a clear utilitarian benefit for migrants as a class, in particular low-SES refugees and migrants.

The moral cases developing the above have become increasingly persuasive to me over the past years, and if one accepts the fundamental equality of persons then they are almost irrefutable. Though I would still say we should move with some caution, both for reasons of political sentiment and because the reality of the world-system today is that it is divided up into myriad jurisdictions with coercive authority over their residents/citizens/subjects - such jurisdictions can't unilaterally abjure their authorities, it should be done in a coordinated fashion. So I wouldn't, say, advocate absolute open borders to the point where any day-tourist has equal voting rights to a lifelong resident, but it is clear to me that many restrictions are unjustifiable.

Individual countries must work well before an international order can work well.

While "work well" is a load-bearing phrase here with indefinite meaning, I would say that in our world it will not be possible to achieve an additive effect of 'countries that solved all their problems unite to do even better'; I don't know whether it is possible or available, but for countries to improve or even maintain their existing positives and advantages, they will have to take a leap and cooperate synergistically

Policies that undermine the trust in democratic institutions in individual countries will undermine a world order that is supportive of democracy.

You've been saying that for a decade, that heterogeneity creates an unacceptable level of friction, and therefore homogeneity is the top priority, but I continue to reject that as in practice both naive and immoral. The core of Reaction is not opposition to external difference but internal difference; no one is safe. And to the extent, as you would retort, Reaction is empowered by ethnic flux, this would seem to be a short-term phenomenon. Rising generations of more diverse populations appear better placed to resist Reaction. (It will be interesting to compare South Korea and Japan to Europe in 20 years now that they've opened themselves to immigration.)

Now, if we actually had a quasi-Trotskyite nascent international order, with the United States marginalizing internal white supremacy and building a coalition of states aggressively promoting multiethnic democracy around the world, I could maybe accede to components of your perspective as a matter of strategic prioritization, a racial Domino Theory. That is, the transnational liberal alliance would prioritize 'converting' the lowest hanging fruit and strengthening its own position in such a way that it could optimally target more recalcitrant societies later on for cascading revolution. In that case, maybe we could temporarily tolerate ethnocentrism in places like Hungary while shoring up France and Germany.

But there is no coordinated strategy or superpower coming to help us, so we have to make do improvisationally anywhere we can. The international scope of the Black Lives Matter protests was a promising signal. A maximalist realization of common feeling would be, like, a billion people striking across North America, Europe, and India to demand minority rights in China.

It's not an authoritarian turn in countries like Hungary and Poland that should be worrying, because democracy likely never became firmly embedded in the local culture in these two countries in the first place. It's the countries where the democratic institution has long and very firm roots that should be in focus, because if democracy falters here, it could be wiped out in its entirety for a long time.

As I've sometimes pointed out, no - it is exactly the failure of democracy in many places throughout the world over the past generation that should be deeply alarming to all of us in so-called "mature" democracies, because the human limitation is a universal one and manifests everywhere. The past five years should really amply demonstrate this point, don't you think, the inherent fragility of rooted institutions (that typically have only really been that rooted for 20, 50, 100 years at most)? Liberal democracy is not an achievement but a permanent struggle, a tenuous order under siege from its enemies, analogous to the fictional conflict between Jedi and Sith in surprising ways. Even though it is consistently shown that most modern humans want some level of democracy in their lives, democracy is difficult to establish, difficult to maintain, and easy to subvert.

Per the response to some of the previous excerpts, consider how many simultaneous and overlapping civilizational crises and upheavals we face. Inequality and oligarchy, fascism, climate change, cultural change... - to say nothing of unique national issues. No one country has the luxury of simply resolving these sequentially and then moving on to other concerns, no more than a human being has a chance of 'perfecting their own private life' before engaging with their community.

Now if you unleash demographic revolutions in such countries, then an obvious possibility, even from a very superficial perspective, is that the local culture experiences upheaval; and one element of the culture that could be turned on its head is the trust in democracy and a cooperative society. What has been learnt over many generations can be unlearnt.

What do you think of the essay I linked?

[Gilrandir]

Did you support the removal of the Yanukovych government? If so, you would no longer have endorsed that objective had there been, to your knowledge, any private property damage? If not, why not? If so, why is a revolutionary overthrow of government without apparent property damage more legitimate than a protest against police abuse with any such damage?

It is not about being legitimate or not, it is about the lack of common sense. Protesters demand "law and order and justice", as you say, but by that they mean all these FOR THEMSELVES, and not for those who happened to own shops on a wrong street. If this is "justice for all" why do you attack innocent people's property? They aren't included into all? How are they guilty in the depravity of the police? Do the rioters realize that they alienate people by looting?

That is not true. There are very few protesters who advocate property destruction as a political tactic. The most famous property damage of the June protests was against police stations and vehicles and government property. The second-most famous instance was, and this says something bad about us and the media, the burgling of fancy stores in midtown/lower Manhattan (which police refused to stop). Much of the protests in Kenosha were taking place at or near a court house. Are you more comfortable with that?

I'm not comfortable with the fact that innocent people's property was targeted on one simple reason - that it was located in a wrong place.

And the idea that civil protests could be held WITHOUT any looting never seems to occur to you.

Then condemn those people if you must - but the underlying issue here is that you have always resisted the aims of even the peaceful protesters.

This is one of your ideas that has been ascribed to me but never was voiced or hinted by me.

My two basic frustrations connected with the issue were (and are):
1. One should't be making a saint out of a hardened criminal.
2. Innocent people and their property shouldn't be targeted in a political movement against the authorities.

While this is no surprising revelation, you would accordingly be on the side of fascist thugs who enter communities to perpetrate aggression and terror and have likely never protected themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arson in their lives - all after you freaked out at the very existence of black men with guns. I'm on the side of those demanding law and order and justice.

You seem to be getting worked up. Try to read what I wrote instead of putting YOUR ideas and expectations into MY head. This is what I wrote in post # 206:

if they limit their activities to protecting their families and property, their ideology doens't matter to me. When they start excessive actions, hang them on the lamp posts. Next to looters.

Beyond all that, I can't help but notice a trend or East-Slavic fetish, at least in connection to America society, for the idea of lethal violence in defense of "svoju chastnoju sobstvennost (one's private property)."

chastnoju - chastnUju

And I help but notice your staunch attempts to whitewash (or is the politically correct term blackwash?) marauding. Phrases like "condemn them if you must" or "are you comfortable now" together with emphasizing that it was mostly fancy shops that were plundered suggest that you yourself don't condemn, but justify and even approve of the looting. "Those reach white shop owners wouldn't get any poorer if the right cause fighters relieve them of some ill-gotten jewelry and electronics they own by oppressing other races", right? Something like "Dresden bombing was what those Nazi bastards deserve" or "Soviet troops raped German women, and serve them right. They should have never lived together with their husbands, fathers, and sons, who acted like that in the USSR."

I'm curious as to whether such a thing is even legal under any circumstances in Russia or Ukraine.

I don't know what is legal in Russia. I believe in a dictatorship legal is everything what the dictator blesses.

As for Ukraine: I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. If you are so much curious, don't restrain your curiosity and research it.

[Shaka_Khan]

I'd hate to be a cop now, not knowing which person on the streets isn't dangerous, while all those shootings are going on.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Any thoughts on this from our American members. I am not really qualified to judge the validity of his arguments.

Nor am I qualified, but if I had to guess, I'd say he gets off on the murder charges, or at least has the severity greatly reduced. There will probably be some sort of illegal weapons charge due to being under age. It's America.....stupid shit like this happens all the time