#or leftist protesters you the reader are meant to hate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

reallifemag · 6 years

Text

No Joke - Natasha Lennard

Image: Detail from Sacks (2007) by Sara Greenberger Rafferty. Courtesy the artist and Rachel Uffner Gallery.

A popular fiction has it that Socrates was convicted of his various charges by a slim majority of Athenian judges. Then, when it came to sentencing, the prosecutor proposed death. Socrates instead proposed that he receive free meals for life in the city’s sacred hearth. In response, more judges voted to sentence him to death for his impertinence than had voted to convict him in the first place. Though this isn’t true, it would have been ironic if it were.

Socrates, we might say, died from “irony poisoning.” Not the flesh-and-blood man Socrates, of course — he was probably killed for teaching and befriending deposed tyrants — but the Socrates we know from Plato and Xenophon’s hagiographic renderings, who was apparently sentenced to death by hemlock for using irony to reveal philosophical truths to young Athenian men.

If only the term irony poisoning were used that way, for cases in which poison is dispatched against irony. Instead, the term has emerged in social media parlance to signify that irony, cultivated online, is itself the poison. Mimetic of the process it ostensibly denotes, “irony poisoning” began somewhat as a joke. It’s well summed up, as these things often are, in an Urban Dictionary entry: “Irony poisoning is when one’s worldview/Weltanschauung/reality tunnel is so dominated by irony and detachment-based-comedy that the joke becomes real and you start to do things that are immoral or wrong from a place of deep nihilistic cynicism.” An extreme case of “irony poisoning” turns the online shitposter into the committed violent racist, willing to carry out bloody deeds offline.

The adoption of the term “irony poisoning” lets centrist liberals do what centrist liberals do best: call for civility, earnestness, and Truth as the antidote to violent extremism

Had “irony poisoning” remained imprecise, self-referential Twitter jargon, there would be no reason to take issue with it. But it’s now being used in earnest to describe a real and troubling condition. It has been enthusiastically picked up by publications like the Guardian, the Boston Globe, and the New York Times, which embraced it as a revelatory explanation for the rise and spread of fascist communities online and the offline violence they facilitate. “We are making a plea to scholars, readers and Silicon Valley elites,” the Times journalists wrote, without apparent irony, “take irony poisoning seriously.” And we should, but not for the reasons they adduce. Rather, the term’s adoption reveals the flawed way mainstream liberal analysis wants to see and interpret fascism. It lets centrist liberals do what centrist liberals do best: call for civility, earnestness, and Truth as the antidote to violent extremism.

That’s not to say that the pattern that the “irony poisoning” thesis points to is not gravely real. Online communities awash in euphemistic alt-right neo-Nazi references as well as explicit racial slurs and Hitler memes have produced violent actors in the physical world. Charlottesville was organized as a meat-space meetup of white supremacists who had found each other online and adopted a cartoonish lexicon by which to recognize each other (Pepes, symbols of Odinism and so on) and culminated in white supremacists beating a black man with metal poles, and a neo-Nazi mowing his Dodge Charger into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one. Lane Davis, a prolific far-right troll on YouTube who called his parents “leftist pedophiles,” was thought to be nothing more than an outrage peddler until he stabbed his dad to death. The New York Times invoked irony poisoning in response to a case involving a German firefighter in a liberal town who bartered online in anti-refugee Facebook propaganda and Hitler jokes. He then attempted to set fire to a refugee group house.

These incidents of physical violence were no doubt stoked by a worldview shaped and encouraged in social media’s dark crevices, where race hate is often expressed and (further) normalized through memes and jokes. That is simply to say that our beliefs and behaviors are shaped and reinforced by the communities of which we are a part, and individual participation reinforces the group subjectivity in turn. Yet the framework of “irony poisoning” becomes dubious when applied as an actual explanation or pathology. By blaming irony as some sort of gateway drug to “real” race hate, it suggests that “real” far-right extremism develops through an extreme ironic detachment from reality and its moral standards. But in fact it is through routine attachment to networks in which white supremacy is an a priori moral norm in need of defense that fascist subjects are formed. Attachment, not detachment, is the problem.

For those of us interested in delivering effective blows to racist, fascistic formation, dismantling this liberal framework matters. I agree, we must take seriously the discursive violence expressed through veiled euphemisms and Pepe memes on Twitter, and the physical violence committed by those who speak that language. And we must take seriously that the flawed liberal response to these horrors is to blame irony.

The irony poisoning pathology belongs in the pantheon of bad explanations for the rise of fascism, which insist that a public is somehow unwittingly tricked into it: the idea that young, disaffected, white male social media users believe themselves to simply be playing a communal game of out-trolling each other but are in fact duped into a true fascistic frenzy. We see this framework play out in Jason Wilson’s piece on the phenomenon in the Guardian, in which he notes that seasoned neo-Nazis lure new recruits in with memes and racist jokes.

The media has picked up on contemporary white supremacist irony as if all previous iterations of fascism were somehow devoid of it. It’s perhaps calming to think that previous fascist constellations were transparent regimes of explicit race hate, easy to name and oppose. Nazi hats had skulls on them, for god’s sake, as British comedians David Mitchell and Robert Webb skewer in a sketch in which one Nazi asks another, “Hans, are we the baddies?” But historic fascist movements often bartered in irony and euphemism. Mussolini’s Black Shirts took up the slogan “Me Ne Frego,” which basically translates to “I don’t give a fuck” — a seeming cry of nihilistic detachment. But in context, the phrase meant “I don’t give a fuck if I die fighting for fascism.” The ironic expression was one of extreme attachment and sincere commitment, which makes individual nihilism possible. And as Malcolm Harris pointed out at in an interview with Elaine Parsons, author of Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan in Reconstruction, the Reconstruction Klan also weaponized “goofiness and so-called irony.” “All the Klannish affectations and accoutrements that seem so ridiculous today — the alliterative K’s, the costumes, the Magic: The Gathering titles like ‘Grand Wizard’ and ‘Exalted Cyclops’ — were ridiculous, and self-consciously so,” wrote Harris. “One of the functions of humor for the Klan, Parsons says, was to mark their transgressions as acceptable.” The funny white ghost costumes didn’t distract the American public into regarding Klan violence and the destruction of black life as acceptable and even desirable; rather it made it appear as normal and natural as laughter. The appeal to irony was not a trick, but an attempt to assert an already existing racist community, to invoke belonging and exclusion of the other.

In Germany in 1933, Wilhelm Reich, in analyzing how a society chooses fascism, rejected the all-too-easy notion of the duped masses. He insisted that we take seriously the fact that people, en masse, genuinely desired fascism. Ignorant masses weren’t manipulated into an authoritarian system they do not actually want. A Freudian acolyte, Reich posited a repressive hypothesis to account for fascist desire: The collective fascist subject was the result of societal sexual repression. His diagnosis was biologically essentialist and now appears wildly outdated, but his insistence on taking fascistic desire seriously remains all too lacking in today’s commentary on the rise of the far right.

This approach was further developed by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari to account for fascist desire formation as a productive force rather than a by-product of repression. “No, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism,” they wrote. Deleuze and Guattari focused on micro-fascisms — quotidian, repressive operations of politics and power organized under capitalism and modernity. The individualized and detached self, the over-codings of family unit normativity, the authoritarian tendency of careerism and competition, the desire for hierarchy and power, the police — all among paranoiac sites of micro-fascism. These stem from the practices of authoritarianism and domination and exploitation that form us, reflecting how we are coded to desire the domination and oppression of the nameable “other,” and none of us are free of them. We can’t just “decide” our way out of them through a renewed commitment to earnestness.

But not everyone becomes a neo-Nazi. That requires a nurturing and constant reaffirmation of that fascistic desire to oppress and live in an oppressive world. And to be sure, that pernicious affirmation of white supremacy is not in short supply. Long before the birth of the internet, Deleuze and Guattari stressed interactive, habitual way that fascist desire is determined: “Desire is never an undifferentiated instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions.” Fascist subject formation relies on habit, and collective habit at that; social media platforms are an “engineered setup” that accommodate and incentivize these routines. Social media is literally designed to offer metrics of affirmation, which are easily adapted to incubating fascist desire.

The alt-right euphemistic symbols of racism are meant to confuse outsiders and affirm insiders who can feel a sense of belonging by being in the know. They are not attempts to trick the otherwise unsusceptible into racist thinking. Making racist jokes and references are among the habits that sustain and grow neo-fascist online communities, but it’s not the “irony” in them that affords a sense of permission and ushers someone toward white supremacist violence; it is the community that fosters such speech. The ability for angry, entitled people to find each other and support each other’s racial animosities, to speak freely and spread their message without negative consequences provides the conditions for far-right extremism to flourish, not the ambiguities of ironic discourse.

The suggestion that young social media users could somehow stumble into these online communities, believing them to be populated by ironic and nihilistic jokesters as opposed to “real” racists does not add up. Participation presumes understanding what Wittgenstein called a “form of life,” the necessary background context by which interactions and expressions are made possible. In these communities, emboldened white supremacy is the form of life, and participating in them presumes that understanding. Participants can’t be “poisoned” by what they already know.

Consider the “OK” hand sign adopted by the alt-right, Proud Boys, Identity Evropa and their fellow neo-Nazi travelers. The use of the hand sign began as a hoax on a 4chan alt-right discussion board. “Operation O-KKK” was announced “to convince people on Twitter that the ‘OK’ hand sign has been co-opted by neo-Nazis.” The same “meme magic” — to borrow shitposter parlance — was used to “trick” liberals and leftists into believing that milk was a white power symbol. Members of the alt-right swarmed actor Shia LaBeouf’s He Will Not Divide Us video-stream installation in New York, chugging cartons of milk. But there is nothing magical or alchemical in giving objects and words new significance through use. That just how meaning works. And it works even faster through social media’s metabolism, which establishes popular phrases and new references several times a day at minimum.

Buzzfeed’s Joe Bernstein, who first reported on the fight over the “OK” sign, wrote, “Where it gets really fuzzy … is trying to determine when and if these symbols cross over from ironic usage.” But it’s pretty clear that the “ironic” usage was poisoned with real racism from the moment groups defined by their white supremacy decide to collectively communicate and represent themselves with it. It’s not that irony poisoned the symbol or anyone using it; it’s the fact that neo-fascists used it to signal each other and develop the habit together, strengthening group subjectivity. Outside the language game of racism, it’s still just means “OK.” Inside, it betokens emboldened white supremacist fascism and bonds that sustain it. Those who claimed to be no more than pranksters were not drawing “us vs. them” lines arbitrarily; their targets were, from the jump, “libtards” and “social justice warriors” who dared care about misogyny and white supremacy.

Not every alt-right shitposter is going to take up physical violence against immigrants and non-white people. But the ones who do were not led to violence by a morality-blurring world of white supremacist humor but a consensus reality built around racism as a given, which is then nurtured, collectively and algorithmically.

If desiring fascism is not something that happens out of reason, we cannot break it with reason alone — this is the liberal mistake that manifests as calls to debate fascists in order to reveal the flaws in their thinking, as if fascist desire was simply something that dissolves into dust when faced with a counterargument or exposed for what it is.

Having a platform is what allows fascist communities to nurture fascist desire in participants. Thus anti-fascists seek to disrupt far-right rallies, deny opportunities to fascist speakers, and expose and shutter those online fascist communities to create unpleasant, if not intolerable, consequences for those indulging or exploring fascist desire. The point is to break the fascist habit by denying the spaces where it is fostered.

It would suit liberal and conservative disavowals of antifa tactics if irony poisoning were really the problem at hand. Condemning irony is the same as insisting that sunlight is the best disinfectant for fascism. As Vicky Osterweil noted in this publication, “feckless liberals abdicate power in the hopes that it will somehow ‘reveal’ the true nature of fascism — think of Democrats relying on Trump to finally demonstrate his unfitness to rule rather than organizing an actual opposition — fascism consolidates representations of that unfitness as opportunities to demonstrate loyalty and belonging.” Behind the so-called irony of Pepe and Kek, there is no pure discursive sphere to be revealed, where fascism and race hate have no place to hide. I suppose there’s some irony — a tired, well worn irony — in the media suggesting that the problem with racist fascism under Trump is that it’s all too obscure.

0 notes

republicstandard · 7 years

Text

Australia's Invasion Day: What Does This Actually Mean?

Ash Sharp Editor

Australia Day is a national holiday in which Australians historically have joined together in summer to enjoy a long weekend with the celebration of traditional Aussie customs such as atrocious beer, grilled kangaroo, and domestic violence.

There's a lot going on in Australia lately. A long-running discussion about Aboriginal rights has, of late, taken a wider identitarian turn. On Jan. 26, 1788, Captain Arthur Phillip landed in Sydney Cove, near where the famous Opera House was later built, to establish a penal colony. This is the date commemorated by Australia Day, and thus the target for the so-called 'Invasion Day' protests.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Some of these protests demand change from the Australian government and action on the Uluru Statement From The Heart, a document put together by a concordance of Aboriginal leaders in 2017 which was rejected by the Australian Government in favor of recognizing Aboriginals in a constitutional amendment. Other protests are quite different in origin.

I love my country, I love being Australian, I celebrate being Australian almost every day. I do not celebrate it today. Today my heart is with our indigenous brothers and sisters and all the pain and turmoil they have suffered #InvasionDay 🖤💛❤️ pic.twitter.com/TfHer7kr6s

— Jona Weinhofen Ⓥ (@jonaweinhofen) January 25, 2018

The Aboriginal elder Tauto Sansbury told a small crowd in Adelaide that recognizing the hurt caused by celebrating on the day the first fleet arrived must be the start of a wider conversation.

“People have said there’s other issues to deal with, well no there’s not,” he said. “This is the first one that breaks down the barriers. Then we can move on to all of the other things that are not right for Aboriginal people.”

Perhaps Mr. Sansbury is right, and the future is in changing the date of the celebration of Australia as a concept to another. Alice Springs Councillor Jacinta Nampijinpa Price disagrees.

"Let’s be honest about where the argument to change the date comes from: a place of resentment, anger and now hate. The vitriol that has been directed at me, as an Aboriginal woman, for voicing my opinion and for encouraging a healthier way of thinking, has been far, far worse then any alleged racist sentiment claimed to come from the celebration of Australia Day.

Is changing the date some kind of quick fix to obscure the failure to solve our real problems? Symbolic acts have no meaningful impact on Australia’s most marginalized, so why then are so many so happy to invest vast amounts of energy into a meaningless symbolic act?

It is a pathetic attempt at appeasing resentment, anger, and white guilt."

Tarneen Onus-Williams of the "Aboriginal Nationalist" group Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance said

"F..k Australia, hope it burns to the ground.

People who celebrate Australia Day are celebrating the genocide of aboriginal people, waving Australian flags in our faces. It’s disgusting.

We don’t want the date changed. We don’t want to celebrate Australia Day at all."

Tarnee Onus-Williams

You might say Ms. Onus-Williams sounds like a bit of an extremist and generally I would agree. This week she called 3AW Radio host Neil Mitchell a "racist" for the slight of asking her if it was appropriate to use the state-funded Koorie Youth Council (headed by Onus-Williams herself) to use public money to promote 'Invasion Day' rallies. She also does not believe that White people's law applies to Aboriginals, which as I gather is a common sentiment among fringe groups.

For those questioning the genocide of the Aboriginal people, we must accept that there are technical grounds for her words. Between 1910 and 1970, up to 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken from their parents and put in white foster homes. According to the United Nations 1951 definition, this counts as a genocide. Granted, it's hardly gas chambers or Rwanda, but it was a messed up time regardless- with the youngest of these people still very much alive and part of society.

There's clearly a lot of work to go on between White people and Aboriginals to smooth things out. While I would make no apology for the rights of the descendants of the settlers, if Aboriginal people are indeed being treated unfairly in Australian society- that's a topic of discussion for Australians. What shouldn't be on the cards is the weaponization of this topic to advance agendas that are insurrectionist in intent. This is exactly what has happened in this 'Invasion Day' Movement. There will always be a conflict of interests between racial groups, and what interests me most is how opportunistic leftist ideologues capitalize on these issues, again and again.

This one leads me to many questions. As Bill Warner explains, Hijra is the Jihad of Migration.

youtube

There is no common motivation for Muslims to support the rights of Aboriginals on religious grounds, but there is plenty to be gained from supporting identitarian movements that target White Australians. I do wonder what would happen if magically those troublesome Whites were evaporated from Australia. Would the interests of Islamists and Aboriginals still align under those circumstances? The other assessment I draw from this image is that again, we witness the alliance between Islam and the Hard Left authoritarians in the field of social politics.

White man 1: “so silly that they wanna change the date” White man 2: “I know right?? I like Australia Day being where it is. Screw catering for everyone” Yeah, but nah. I’d hate for everyone to get a celebratory holiday for the death of my family. #fuckedup #InvasionDay

— Sanie 🤘🏼🇵🇸 (@ArabAussiePunk) January 27, 2018

The oddity of course here is that people of non-White descent who follow a religion of conquest are now also Australians, but feel no allegiance to the nation-state that allowed them to become citizens. Rather, the stain of benefitting from the government of the oppressor is shrugged off. This time, the more recent immigrants are on the side of the people who are complaining about historical immigration.

ABC's Indigenous Affairs editor Stan Grant, himself of both settler and Aboriginal ancestry, approaches the truth with caution.

Australia Day feels angrier. It is a defiant flag in a window and a flag on fire at a protest. This is our age; what the Indian writer Pankaj Mishra calls "the age of anger". We prize identity more than citizenship.

Grant does hit the nail but is too confused in his blog post to strike it cleanly. Identity is indeed becoming more important than citizenship, as lines in multicultural societies are cracked open along religious and ethnic lines. A civilizational clash, so to speak.

Those who tack too close to the other side of the conflict are brought down by a storm of racist slurs.

Uncle Tom is a racist slur @EricHardcastle #auspol https://t.co/yECmdLZMGB

— Nyunggai W Mundine (@nyunggai) January 27, 2018

Are we allowed to call people like that coconuts?

— Unreality Enthusiast (@manbearcat) January 27, 2018

Warren Mundine is an Aboriginal advocate and successful businessman. His book teaches the value of self-determination and warns against victim culture. As he writes:

After the 1967 referendum, Aboriginal people started to receive equal pay across the board through a combination of changes to laws and industrial decisions over about a decade. For some regional industries, like the pastoral industry, this meant a huge jump in expenses. Most Aboriginal people in those industries had never actually received equal wages. Instead of getting a pay increase, they lost their jobs and were kicked off their lands. The pastoralists lost a cheap source of labor and weren’t willing or able to pay them full wages.

At the same time, Aboriginal people gained rights to government benefits, which previously they weren’t entitled to. So those who lost their jobs became full-time welfare recipients... Ultimately, the key to tackling long-term unemployment among Aboriginal people is the same as for anyone else. You have to address long-term welfare dependency.

For these radical ideas, Mr. Mundine has been called Uncle Tom -which makes no sense at all unless you recognize the globalist leftist movement as in some sense monolithic- and coconut; brown on the outside but white on the inside. Yes, an age of anger indeed. You must obey the perception of what radicals say is your racial interest, or you are a traitor. How can any society stand such flagrant bigotry against examples of success? Mr. Mundine's book is available here. I highly recommend you buy a copy, I have.

Here lies the issue. When the system is shown to be quite accepting of people provided they are willing to work hard and not give up despite adversity, this breaks the narrative. But whose narrative is it?

Frequent readers of these pages may already recognize where I am going to point the finger. Where does this anger spring from? I have suspicions. The rhetoric used is all too familiar to me, and to my former allies on the Radical Left. We can surely recognize that society is not perfect or that unfairness occurs without demanding the entirety of society be overthrown. That is madness.

Across the spectrum, on this issue, the same narrative is deployed in every nation founded by Europeans. Colonialism is the worst thing to ever happen, and it's because of that the indigenous people need to be protected from the society the White Man built. Because the personal fortitude exhibited by men like Warren Mundine breaks the socialist's framing of the world, the world must be redrawn along racial lines in order to sow division further.

It’s intrinsically about conflict, tearing down the old, using activism to impose your views on society. And don’t play the victim card with me when this whole campaign to change Australia Day is founded on perpetual victim hood.

— Bodywise (@BodwiseLisle) January 26, 2018

Thomas Sowell found the crux of this flawed mentality.

In the half century between 1945 and 1995, black Americans' raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points.

In other words, black Americans' test score results in 1995 would have given them an average IQ just over 100 in 1945. Only the repeated renorming of IQ tests upward created the illusion that blacks had made no progress, but were stuck at an IQ of 85. But we would never have known this if some researchers had not defied the taboo on studying race and IQ imposed by black "leaders" and white "friends."

Note well. Black intellectuals reject utterly the idea that non-White people cannot succeed in White nations. The idea that this is the case is an idea promoted by Neo-Marxists who wish to see the fall of Western Civilization in totality, in the vain hope that a socialist society will rise in its place. The racial causes championed by these radicals are mostly cat's paws. Once the bourgeoisie is finished, the ideological purging will begin again, regardless of how black you are.

The Neo-Marxist left is a global movement that is linked by recognizing very vague principles, like the equation of Whiteness with 'privilege' and, therefore, Capitalism itself. To fight Whiteness is to fight on the side of the good guys against the Evil Empire, so it goes. This mentality is unbelievably facile, but so open in interpretation that it can be applied to any situation where the blame can be laid at the feet of Whitey and/or Capitalism, which as previously stated, just means White People.

This makes it possible for British transgender mixed-race model and known racist Munroe Bergdorf (what a title!) to hold several conflicting ideas at once. I'm using Bergdorf as an example as there are few people who are so vehement in their overt ideological stances. Rest assured, Bergdorf is merely saying what a great many Neo-Marxists genuinely believe.

Bergdorf sees no conflict in having this as a pinned post in which she says;

"Don't let other people define you your identity is integral to creating change in the world"

"Don't let other people define you..." @i_D 😉 pic.twitter.com/WEl2S2H4uA

— Munroe Bergdorf (@MunroeBergdorf) December 20, 2017

This concept does not extend to Whites. White identity is toxic in nature. Bergdorf shows this to be her true opinion when she said;

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people."

One more time. Racism is a system that ALL white benefit from. Nobody is above or exempt. Regardless of how non-racist u consider yrself. Nobody is exempt from social conditioning or systemic racism. You can unlearn and be an ally but that doesn't mean you don't benefit from it.

— Munroe Bergdorf (@MunroeBergdorf) January 24, 2018

Finally, Bergdorf makes strong statements in solidarity with Aboriginals.

In solidarity with Indigenous Australians today. Austrailia Day is a cruel and white supremacist holiday. Call it what it is #InvasionDay #Genocide. Austrailia is stolen land. I stand with you. pic.twitter.com/ADdtD6PJ6w

— Munroe Bergdorf (@MunroeBergdorf) January 25, 2018

In solidarity with Aboriginal Australia ✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾 #InvasionDay pic.twitter.com/bzBkzRwLN4

— Munroe Bergdorf (@MunroeBergdorf) January 26, 2018

Naturally, when it is pointed out that Bergdorf is in fact a racist the victim card is deployed. Land rights only matter when the newcomers arrived 250 years ago and are White. This is a consistent aspect of racial advocacy.

Angry white people calling for me to be deported... LMAOOOOOOOO. Deport to where?! The entitlement.

— Munroe Bergdorf (@MunroeBergdorf) October 13, 2017

The flaw in the logic is clear, for which we must thank Bergdorf for being so open. The only possible reason for Bergdorf and her ilk to say such things is that they are in fact Hard Left racist activists themselves. If Australia is indeed "stolen land" and "always was, and always will be aboriginal", then Sweden always was, and always will be Nordic. France for the Gauls. Poland for the Polish. Europe: Always was an always will be European land.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Twitter user Old Holborn cuts straight to the point.

Interesting new approach from the left. "no immigration, no diversity, fuck multiculturalism" https://t.co/dchW4TbxEr

— Old Holborn✘ (@Holbornlolz) January 26, 2018

So it would certainly appear to all who are not far left fanatics. It cannot be reasonable to demand diversity and multiculturalism in one moment and then advocate for an ethnostate when it suits. Yet, this is where we are with the modern leftist. Western countries may not have borders, borders are for Nazis. 'Nations of Color' must have the right to expunge the Whites from their land. The press will ignore or support these ideas, as it can only be ethnic-cleansing when Whites do it. The double standards expressed by the left will, either intentionally or not, further deepen racial tensions. It is happening already, as White people are discovering a racial identity politics that is not actually racist at all.

Despite being told that Whiteness is toxic for several decades, the descendants of Europe have shown fantastic politeness and restraint in the face of severe problems brought about by migration- to the point of near certain demographic suicide in some nations. It is thanks to overtly racist activists like Bergdorf, Tarneen Onus-Williams and their American analogs such as Shaun King that racial consciousness is even a topic among Whites- particularly when it comes to the perception of racial bias against White people. As Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers discovered;

We asked 417 black and white respondents to assess how big a problem anti-black bias was in America in each decade from the 1950s to the present. We then asked them the same questions about anti-white bias — the extent to which they felt that racism against whites has changed since the 1950s.

Black and white Americans both thought anti-black bias had decreased over the decades. Whites saw that decline as steeper and more dramatic than blacks did, but the general impressions of the trend were similar for both races.

When asked about anti-white bias, though, black and white respondents differed significantly in their views. Black respondents identified virtually no anti-white bias in any decade. White respondents agreed that anti-white bias was not a problem in the 1950s, but reported that bias against whites started climbing in the 1960s and 1970s before rising sharply in the past 30 years.

When asked about the present-day United States, a striking difference emerged. Our average white respondent believed that at the time of our survey in 2011, anti-white bias was an even bigger problem than anti-black bias.

The entire concept of the Alt-Right or modern identitarianism is a product of Hard Left racist activism. I would argue that in the United States this trend towards Whites feeling victimized is only likely to continue, particularly with 5 more years of the Obama administration to come after this survey. From the events surrounding Australia Day, we can see a mirroring of the race-politics that were deployed by Neo-Marxist groups like Black Lives Matter so perhaps the path is a similar one. Perhaps Australia is priming to be made great again.

Institutionally, Australia now seems set for achieving the exact opposite of what diversity measures are set out to achieve.

Dr. Tim Soutphommasane is Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner. in 2016 he wrote the following piece for ABC entitled "Is Australia a Racist Country? On the State of our Race Relations."

Our immigration program is now one that makes no discrimination on racial grounds. The status of citizenship is open to all members of Australian society, regardless of their ethnic background or national origin.

This does make it hard to sustain the view that Australian society is irredeemably racist. It is hard to square that assessment with our reality and celebration of cultural diversity. About 28% of our population was born overseas; another 20% are the children of migrants. Public acceptance of diversity and multiculturalism is also strong and robust. The Scanlon Foundation's social cohesion survey in 2015 found that 86% of Australians believe that multiculturalism is good for the country - a level that has been consistent the past three years.

None of this should be taken to mean that racism is not a problem. Unfortunately, it still is.

Dr. Soutphommasane goes on at length to talk about representation in the media and the problems caused by a perfectly reasonable suspicion of Islam.

As he focuses on relative minutiae, he misses that the very concept of diversity quotas or the granting of special privilege to religious groups is anathema to a free society. Despite all the evidence that Australians are hugely non-racist, he sees his role -as many other left-wing academics do- to stamp out racism, among white people in particular. As bigots will always exist, one cannot make such an impossible quest happen without resorting to tyranny.

This is not to say bigotry for the sake of bigotry should be acceptable, but the path Australia has taken is no more effective at improving race relations than electing Barack Obama was in the United States, or the ascension of Sadiq Khan in London.

Representation is meaningless if you simply supply access to power to leftists because they call you a racist if you don't. It never works the way it is thought to do by anyone except- drum roll please- leftist ideologues.

Councillor Price, who we met at the top of the article, is completely correct. Invasion Day is an exercise in appeasement. If Australia Day is changed, it is a small victory for the leftists who move onto another topic, emboldened. If the calls are ignored, the leftists still win- they can come back next year and the year after. Forever. The ideological roots of this movement belong to Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. These people, of many races and backgrounds, are part of a long march of their own- like a virus, the ideology of Communist thought crosses the generations, seducing the young with stories of noble rebellion against imperialist devils.

If Australia is to resolve the issue of Aboriginal identity, first the topic of Hard Left Neo-Marxism must be addressed. Without this resolution, the divisions in Australia will only grow deeper. As I have shown, Australia is not a racist country, by the admission of Aboriginal leaders and the Race Discrimination Commissioner. What it does have a problem with are hardcore ideologically motivated leftist radicals. That is the true invasion of Australia.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine http://ift.tt/2neNDCG via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

oldguardaudio · 8 years

Text

Pamela Geller Report -> Stomp out the Bugs! Obama Bugged Senator Sessions While He Was STILL SENATOR Last Year

ISIS Terror Allahs law – beheading

ISIS Head Syrian Refugee at HoaxAndChange.com

ISIS heads on a fence @ HoaxandChange.com

Today’s Top Stories

Obama Bugged Senator Sessions While He Was STILL SENATOR Last Year

VIDEO: Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch: Need more ‘marching, blood, death on streets’ #WAR

Robert Spencer: It Has Been A Big Week for Fake Hate

Sgt. Derrick Miller: He Fought For Them, But They Won’t Fight For Him

Report: Trump unhappy about Sessions’ recusal from Russia investigations

AP Publishes Pence’s Wife’s Email Address, Pence Hits AP’s “Reprehensible Conduct”

Berkeley: Leftists riot AGAIN at anti-Trump protest, PEPPER-SPRAY elderly Trump supporter, police confiscate metal pipes, bats, bricks

EU Parliament lifts immunity from prosecution for Le Pen for tweeting images of ISIS violence

Faked hate at UC San Diego: “Muslim internment” posters not “anti-Muslim,” but “cautionary tale”

Iraqi officers find Islamic State jihadis hidden among refugees fleeing Mosul