Reality Vs Propaganda

A friend in the academy: “The approach of giving straightforward arguments/evidence isn’t working. We just get steamrolled by emotional propaganda. I think it’s important for race realists to be focused on results–what is actually going to lead to positive change. Rational arguments have the potential to influence people (if not directly then indirectly), but we’re not presenting them in the right way. Or we’re making some kind of strategic error.”

Buddy:

When I think of examples of race realists winning debates, they seem to depend on ‘facts and logic.’ Big case would be kraut&tea vs JF and Alt-Hype. When I think of more successful race realists in terms of staying in the debate they seem to depend on ‘facts and logic’ approaches, William Shockley, JP Rushton, Charles Murray. Those who use emotional approaches seem to get crushed like pathetic bugs. Your Spencers, your Enochs. People LOVE technobabble explanations for things. That’s why KMac is popular for instance. His idea is complete nonsense but sounds technical. So people think ‘whoa, deep’.’Ozone hole’ rhetoric gets regulation. ‘Silent spring’ rhetoric gets legislation passed. ‘Global warming’. These are all very technical ideas, not something broad and emotional like the sierra clubs environmentalism. ‘Peak oil’. I don’t see a lot of race realists running around giving straightforward arguments and evidence, and those that do seem to be moderately successful – those I mentioned before, Cochran, Emil Kirkegaard – they aren’t doing anywhere close to as terribly as the alt-right. The race realists who give good arguments don’t tend to be political zealots, not coincidentally. Political zealots make terrible scientists. I think political fervor needs to be combined with race realism in a healthy way, which means race realism can’t and shouldn’t be the main focus. The HBD umbrella should be the focus – individuals are different, genders are different, races are different, classes are different, age groups are different, every individual and group is meaningfully different – so politics that depends on a blank slate can’t work. I think this lends itself fundamentally to conservative and libertarian ideology – assume people are where they are for good reason.

Friend: “I’m not sure I agree with this. Shockely and Rushton were/are written off by the mainstream as Nazi cranks. Charles Murray has been successful in a sense, but only because he is very wishy washy about race realism. In TBC there’s only a vague statement about how genes probably make a contribution to black-white IQ differences, and when it matters Murray often denies even this. (There’s the notorious incident on the Stephen Colbert show where Colbert asked Murray if he said that genes play a role in IQ differences and Murray responded, “I never said that.”) Murray would never make a serious effort to think through the *political* implications of race differences, or at least he wouldn’t comment on this publicly. Emil Kirkegaard is so toxic in mainstream academia that even being associated with him can sink your career.”

Jones Very: “Why won’t the racial underclasses recognize their low station? — are we, the privileged & enlightened Sino-Jewish overcaste selling it wrong?”

“How can we explain to the masses that the status quo is actually good and that the Jewish-Asian global elite class that rules over them is necessary and just in a way that they’ll agree and submit to a yoke of slavery?”

Friend: “Watching now. I agree with KMG that deplatforming conservatives might might hurt Trump’s reelection. I’m not sure this matters in the long run, since Trump’s actual policies (e.g., de facto open borders) are difficult to distinguish from the democrats’. I still don’t think it will do much to suppress the ideas/ideologies the censors are targeting. There are different ideas about what it means for deplatforming to “work” or not.”

Posted in HBD | Comments Off on Reality Vs Propaganda

Deplatforming Won’t Work

Nathan Cofnas writes for Quillette:

Last year Robert Bowers shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing eleven people. Before committing this atrocity he wrote on Gab: “HIAS [Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

Gab is a Twitter alternative used by many neo-Nazis and alt-righters who have been (or know they would be) banned from actual Twitter. The unintended—but entirely predictable—consequence of throwing extremists off Twitter has been to create a large community of exiles on Gab. In Gabland, it is people who question Jewish conspiracy theories or the idea that the US should be a white ethnostate who are considered “trolls.” A similar community is developing on the YouTube alternative BitChute, whose Alexa ranking is rising quickly.

Bowers’s threat of imminent violence (“Screw your optics, I’m going in”) didn’t alarm any of his fellow extremists on Gab. What if he had written the same thing on Twitter? Someone would have been much more likely to contact the police. Perhaps at that point there wouldn’t have been enough time to stop him anyway. But if he had been on Twitter, it’s possible that someone would have reported him to the police long before the shooting for some ominous statements he had made in the past. In any case, relegating Bowers to a non-mainstream platform didn’t stop him from committing the deadliest attack on Jews in US history.

In the last few weeks, the leading social media companies have doubled down on their strategy of deplatforming people and censoring content. Alt-right accounts are disappearing from Twitter, videos on controversial topics are being deleted from YouTube, and even some politically moderate YouTube streamers/content creators who didn’t violate the terms of service are being demonetized in an effort to drive them away. But deplatforming won’t work.

This claim needs clarification. Whether something “works” or not depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. If Twitter/YouTube/Facebook want to virtue signal by showing that they oppose controversial views (which could well be their true aim), then deplatforming controversial people will work. What I mean is that it won’t accomplish the noble goals that these companies say is motiving them: to prevent violence and the spread of socially destructive misinformation. If these are their goals then deplatforming will backfire—and already has backfired.

Advocates of deplatforming tend to think only one step ahead: Throw people with opinions you don’t like off mainstream social media and you won’t see them again—out of sight, out of mind. But the deplatformers should try thinking two, maybe even three, steps ahead: What will people do after they’re banned? How will their followers react? How will this be perceived by more or less neutral observers? With some forethought, it’s easy to see that banning people with supposedly “bad” or “wrong” views may not be the victory that deplatformers think it is.

Banning people from social media doesn’t make them change their minds. In fact, it makes them less likely to change their minds. It makes them more alienated from mainstream society, and, as noted, it drives them to create alternative communities where the views that got them banned are only reinforced.

Banning people for expressing controversial ideas also denies them the opportunity to be challenged. People with extremist or non-mainstream opinions are often written off as deranged monsters who could not possibly respond to rational argument. There are, of course, some neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and the like, who conform to this cartoonish stereotype. With these people, reason and evidence go in one ear and come out the other. But not everyone outside the mainstream, and not everyone who falls for a misguided conspiracy theory, deserves to be written off. People do sometimes change their minds in response to reason. If they didn’t there would be no point in debating anything.

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Deplatforming Won’t Work

Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton University Press) By Walker Connor

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton University Press) By Walker Connor

I Went Down The Youtube Glory Hole

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on I Went Down The Youtube Glory Hole

The word racism and its definition changed in the 1930’s from earlier definitions

Joe emails:

Even Wikipedia states this clearly.

An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as “[a]n earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it”, and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term “racism” in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14] It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as “[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: “belief in the superiority of a particular race”. By the end of World War II, racism had acquired the same supremacist connotations formerly associated with racialism: racism now implied racial discrimination, racial supremacism, and a harmful intent. (The term “race hatred” had also been used by sociologist Frederick Hertz in the late 1920s.)

As its history indicates, the popular use of the word racism is relatively recent. The word came into widespread usage in the Western world in the 1930s, when it was used to describe the social and political ideology of Nazism, which saw “race” as a naturally given political unit.[15] It is commonly agreed that racism existed before the coinage of the word, but there is not a wide agreement on a single definition of what racism is and what it is not. Today, some scholars of racism prefer to use the concept in the plural racisms, in order to emphasize its many different forms that do not easily fall under a single definition. They also argue that different forms of racism have characterized different historical periods and geographical areas.[16] Garner (2009: p. 11) summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices).[1]

Posted in Race | Comments Off on The word racism and its definition changed in the 1930’s from earlier definitions