Nick Fuentes, The White Man's Al Sharpton?
Tucker Carlson, The White Man's Oprah?
0:00 What We Can Learn From the Reaction to Nick Fuentes46:49 Introducing Nikki Haley's Son Nalin
48:21 How Nalin Escaped Con Inc.54:16 What Really Is America First?57:13 The Economic Problems We're Not Allowed to Talk About1:00:52 The Debt Problem1:06:26 Why Is Gen Z So Anti-War?1:11:13 How Does Gen Z Feel About Immigration?1:19:59 Is Gen Z Getting More Radical?1:20:27 Is There a Growing Divide Between Men and Women?1:25:03 The Rise in Christianity Among Young Men1:34:35 Will Nalin Ever Run for Political Office?
---
“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
–Hannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"
How white people virtue signal their Guilt-Pride: "I'm anti-racist, and I'm calling out white (but never any other colour) racists! See, I'm a good white person. It's the Groypers like Nick Fuentes and his followers who are racists! It's Trumpers and Republicans and Tucker Carlson! And all men are misgynists, but not me because I'm calling out Groyper and Trumper misogyny..."
78 comments:
...as per your White Supremacist narrative.
As per my race non-essentialist narrative.
But hey, your race-essentialist perspective is always welcome, even if its' stupid.
You've never presented a race non-essentialist narrative. You present a race-essentialist perspective and call it race non-essentialist. I'm not falling for your gaslighting and BS.
I have been saying all along that Progressives are actually Communists with a new name.
And that the Du are the real Raceists. Charlie Kirk had it right, so they killed him before he would be able to convince any more young people to switch their Allegiance to the Democrats who were Bull Shitting the American people for much to long, so they killed him as well.
Denounce black and brown racism and get back to me Derv. Till then, haul your transparently Neoracist ass out of here... cuz until the day you're universally anti-racist and can accept race as a non-essential human feature that you needn't virtue signal (I"'m one of the good whites, I denounce white racism") (like me), you're still an anti-white (Neo)racist.
"I'm anti-racist, and I'm calling out white (but never any other colour) racists!
BS. You never give any example of these non-white racists I'm supposed to be calling out. Give some examples and I'll evaluate them and decide if the people you name are racists or not. Though my instinct is to expect you to name non-racist non-whites and falsely assert that they are racist. This isn't me saying there are zero non-white racists.
Minus: See, I'm a good white person. It's the Groypers like Nick Fuentes and his followers who are racists!
They are. You are arguing they aren't? I suspect so, but I would like you to confirm or deny it. But me asking means you probably won't. I'll take a non-reply as confirmation you are arguing that.
Minus: It's Trumpers and Republicans and Tucker Carlson! And all men are misgynists, but not me because I'm calling out Groyper and Trumper misogyny..."
ALL trumpers are either misogynists or ok with misogynony. I see that as a distinction without a difference. ALL men are NOT misogynists. I'd bet that many men don't know what a "Groyper" is. FYI, donald trump (and you) are confirmed misogynists. I'd hope that people who aren't misogynist would also be able to acknowledge this fact about donald trump.
Communism is definitely their eschaton.
Did you watch the video? Tucker showed examples from quite an array of non-white racists, from media and government.
And I've said multiple times arguing that Fuentes was a race-essentialist, but also making him no different than you (only he substitutes Jews for Whites as scapegoat).
As I misogynist I must really hate my wife, daughter, and grand-daughter, huh? gtfu Derv. I criticize men/women and whites/minorities. I offer none underserved "affirmation" as a protected social class, nor do I intersectionally rank them according to the latest trauma cult lists.
ps - I do see sex as "essential" component of human reproduction... but race is completely non-essential.
Race was never a"thing" until white colonialism and capitalism in the late 1500's began the extraction of natural resources from indigenous peoples reasources across the globe. And turning indigenous peoples into the other. Heavens, savages, etc and the shit show of racism continues to exist today.
I hereby denounce any racism directed at White people by any non White people, specifically Black and Brown people. And it should be noted that my denouncing is in no way intended to be sarcastic in nature. Though I will point out (yet again) that the problem we are facing today, in the united states, concerns racism by Whites directed at Brown and Black people. What with a White Supremacist as president and ICE being allowed to racially profile people to determine who is an "illegal". And then assault them and arrest them, even if they are US citizens. But you won't denounce that, due to being an extreme race essentialist White Supremacist.
Tell that to the Arab Slavers who bought them originally.
They particularly liked white women
Deflecting as you're always wont to do. Especially when the truth stings.
Not good enough. Show that you are an anti-racist. Do it to their FACES every time they make racist remarks about white people. Denounce the ones who continue to advocate for lawful Reverse Jim Crow affirmative action, DEI, and other forms of Neoracism.
And I'll denounce racial profiling the day that police aren't allowed to use any physical characteristics race/ sex/ height/ weight when searching for crime suspects.
It doesn't sting me. I don't discriminate based on race.
I don't advocate for reverse Jim Crow policies.
...because race CAN be incidental. It just must not be made essential when identifying suspects in specific crimes.
from Google AI:
Incidental refers to something that is secondary, minor, or happens by chance, while essential means something is fundamental, necessary, or a core part of something else. An incidental property is one that a thing happens to have but could lose without changing its core identity, whereas an essential property is one that is necessary for it to be what it is. For example, a chair's ability to be sat on is essential, but its color is incidental.
The Democrats that supported to REFUSE TO TAKE ORDERS THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH NEED TO BE PUNISHED SEVERELY.
Thank you President Trump! God is smiling, , And I fully Support you
Minus: But hey, your race-essentialist perspective is always welcome, even if its' stupid.
Talking about stupidity, I'm eagerly anticipating your next hilarious tinfoil hat nuttery re the Epstein files release. Will mad king d0nald come to the reluctant rescue of his deep state IC foes by shielding the files from view? Will both king d0nald and the deep state IC be destroyed when the (imaginary) fact that Jeff was a IC asset be revealed?
What I want to know is will there be any wildly wrong speculation before absolutely nothing happens re the Mike Benz and Bret Weinstein nuttery. This could be good for a laugh.
ps - the very fact that you believe white racism to be the main problem in America is a BLATANTLY neoracist belief.
Problem=racism of one (and not all) racial group(s).
Isn't that what anti-semitism is? The belief that one particular racial group (Jews) are the problem?
Minus: Not good enough. Show that you are an anti-racist. Do it to their FACES every time they make racist remarks about white people.
Who's faces? You didn't give any examples, so I don't know who you are referring to.
Minus: Denounce the ones who continue to advocate for lawful Reverse Jim Crow affirmative action, DEI, and other forms of Neoracism.
There is no such thing as "reverse jim crow affirmative action". And DEI isn't "neoracism". There is also no such thing as "neoracism". That is your White Supremacist framing. Nothing short of me becoming a White Supremacist like you would will ever be "good enough". Which is no surprise. But I'm not going to do that.
The deep state has already censored the Epstein list by requiring a national security review and release process per Congress' bill. The censorship is baked in.
Tucker provided specific cases, cases you claim aren't racist. Watch them, and then tell me again that their not. These people are MAINSTREAM neoracists who are never admonished because people like you find their neoracism 'acceptable".
Do anti-semites call out other anti-semites? Should they? The problem is, they don't. So if you want to claim the mantle of anti-racists, you must call out ALL forms of racism, even the ADL kind (which Tucker is doing, but also calling out the Nick Fuentes kind). Tucker is a race non-essentialist. Nick Fuentes is not.
They want troops to hesitate and judges decide. Its just an escalation of lawfare undermining all forms of legitimacy (like "don't ask, don't tell).
There using the 3 pillars cordyceps approach. Hierarchy, Shame, and Scarcity.
Their problem is that the legal system isn't "above" the Executive, it's merely co-equal. This demonstrates that their intent is to sow "doubt" in the president orders before they are ever adjudicated.
They're "pre-bunking" his orders as "illegitimate".
Minus: Tucker provided specific cases, cases you claim aren't racist.
I did not, liar. I didn't watch the video, so how can I disagree with something said if I don't know what was said? You could tell me, but you refuse.
Minus: Watch them, and then tell me again that their not.
Impossible. I can't tell you "again" something I never told you once. And the video is an hour and a half long. You could simply tell me what he said. Or give me the timing in the video where he said this. But I doubt you will.
Tucker Carlson is a racist. Why should I watch an hour and a half video to see a racist call out racism? That he does according to a racist? I call BS. I think this likely doesn't happen in the video at all.
Minus: Tucker is a race non-essentialist.
This claim is completely false. Tucker Carlson is a race non-essentialist in the same way you are a race non-essentialist. That is, not at all. You're both White Supremacists.
Via Copilot...
Direct answer: The video “Why Is Nick Fuentes So Popular? Nikki Haley’s Son Explains” does not match the blogger’s description in the way they framed it. Tucker Carlson’s episode is primarily about Nick Fuentes’ appeal among young men, generational frustration, and criticism of establishment conservatives. While Carlson and his guest do criticize institutions like the ADL and political figures, the episode does not present a straightforward “calling out of racists” in the sense the blogger claims.
🧾 What the Episode Actually Covers.
Main theme: Carlson asks why Nick Fuentes has become popular, focusing on internet culture, memes, and generational disillusionment.
Criticism of conservatives: He and Nikki Haley’s son Nalin argue that mainstream Republicans (like Ted Cruz) helped create Fuentes’ audience by denouncing him too loudly, which paradoxically elevated him.
Institutions mentioned: Carlson criticizes groups like the ADL and establishment figures, portraying them as hypocritical or dismissive of young men’s concerns.
Tone: Rather than “calling out racists,” Carlson frames Fuentes’ rise as a reaction to political and cultural forces, soft‑pedaling Fuentes’ extremist positions.
⚖️ Blogger’s Description vs. Reality.
The blogger claims Carlson “calls out racists” and labels the ADL and minorities as “mainstream neoracists.”
In reality, Carlson’s framing is more about resentment politics: he suggests that institutions and critics are unfairly labeling Fuentes’ audience, and he positions himself as sympathetic to their grievances.
Carlson does not present a systematic case of “mainstream neoracism” as the blogger describes. Instead, he critiques how accusations of racism are used in political discourse.
✅ Summary.
The blogger’s description is misleading. Carlson does not spend the episode exposing “mainstream neoracists” in the way suggested. He critiques establishment conservatives, institutions like the ADL, and cultural forces, while giving Fuentes space to present himself. The blogger is reframing Carlson’s rhetoric to fit their own argument.
[end]
Conclusion: You lied about what the video is about.
FYI, I don't think neoracism is "acceptable". I think this imaginary thing is very unacceptable and that you should stop lying about it. But you won't.
Minus: I don't advocate for reverse Jim Crow policies.
Of course not. Because nobody does. Because there is no such thing.
Via Copilot...
By saying “I don’t advocate for reverse Jim Crow policies,” the blogger implies such policies exist as a real category. They don’t.
It’s a way of reframing equity measures as “discrimination against whites,” borrowing the moral weight of Jim Crow to delegitimize them.
In reality, Jim Crow was a system of state‑sanctioned oppression. Equity policies are not equivalent, and calling them “reverse Jim Crow” is rhetorical exaggeration.
[end]
They should be EXECUTED!
Bullshit Lester, your side are the ones who are Traders and you are most likely a TRADER as well.
Bullshit Lester, your side are the ones who are Traders and you are most likely a TRADER as well.
I listened to the entire thing, though I wasn't paying complete attention the entire time. I still don't know what you are referring to. Maybe I missed it.
Anyway, this is one of the most damning comments in the entire hour and a half, in my opinion...
Nalin Haley: I think JD [Vance] says a lot of good stuff. 1:34:07
JD Vance is one of the biggest Turds who has ever lived. Nothing he says could be called "good stuff".
btw, I'm certain the "good stuff" wasn't when JD referred to trump as America's Hitler. Just prior to this Nalin was going on about how his views about men being in charge in a marriage isn't misogynistic.
I think that JD and Nalin are in agreement here. That misogynistic views aren't misogynistic at all. Which is a view you also agree with. So, very much NOT "good stuff".
I generated a transcript using a free online tool. I got a text document back of 93,000 characters with no paragraphs. I search "ADL", "defamation league" and other variations and got no results.
You said, "even the ADL kind (which Tucker is doing...)".
Your attempt at a prank?
He does say, "This is why what Israel is doing in Gaza is immoral, not simply because it's a bloody war where civilians are being killed". I pulled this from the transcript when searching "gaza". I agree with this. YOU disagreed with it strongly. Though later you lied and said you disagree.
I can NOT claim any cases "Tucker provided specific cases" aren't racist because I don't know WTF you're talking about.
This is a good reason for me to decline viewing assignments from you in the future. Not because of your BS claims about me wanting to remain ignorant, but because information you CLAIM is in long videos is NOT PRESENT.
Me (questioning Copilot): Has the ADL issued any statements about Israel's bombing of Gaza?
Copilot: Yes. The Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) has issued multiple statements about Israel’s military actions in Gaza, but their framing is very different from human‑rights groups. The ADL consistently defends Israel’s right to self‑defense, condemns Hamas, and criticizes those who accuse Israel of genocide. They have not described Israel’s bombing of Gaza as unlawful or criminal; instead, they emphasize Hamas’s responsibility for civilian casualties and denounce what they call “antisemitic double standards” in criticism of Israel. [end]
I condemn this position, if this is what you are talking about. HOWEVER, this is YOUR position. Articulated numerous times on this blog. Though it seems you flip-flopped and are now denying you ever held this position @@
Pot calls Kettle black! You want to pretend to be better than the kettle? You want me to take the Pot seriously?
I watched the video. What you claim is there, isn't. Perhaps I missed it. Or words he said fit your description IN YOUR MIND. I have no way of knowing and you refuse to quote the words or give a timing in the video that backs up what you say.
I gave you an opportunity to explain and you are declining. I therefore call BS on your claims.
Orders to murder people against US laws and international laws should not be obeyed. Such as orders to extrajudicially murder alleged drug runners off the coast of Venezuela. donald trump is a war criminal, as are those who carried out the orders to kill these people.
Minus: ps - I do see sex as "essential" component of human reproduction...
Meaningless "seeing". Women have babies, so why would anyone disagree with this statement. We aren't currently able to grow babies in artificial wombs.
Via Copilot...
Human reproduction requires gametes (egg + sperm) and gestation in a womb. That’s not a matter of opinion — it’s biological fact.
Saying “sex is essential to reproduction” is like saying “oxygen is essential to breathing.” It’s trivially true, but not a meaningful philosophical claim.
No one could coherently argue that sex is not essential, unless they were speculating about future technologies (like artificial wombs or lab‑grown gametes).
🧩 Where the Confusion Lies.
The blogger is trying to contrast race (social) with sex (biological).
But by phrasing it as “I see sex as essential,” he makes it sound like a personal stance, when in reality it’s just a biological given.
The statement adds no new insight — it’s a tautology dressed up as philosophy.
[end]
Anonymous moron: Bullshit Lester, your side are the ones who are Traders and you are most likely a TRADER as well.
You mean "traitor"? Or are you talking about trading something? What is being traded?
So Victor, you belive god smiles every time tRump takes a verbal dump.
^^Off the keyboard of a traitorous moron^^
Your projections define you anymouse, no one else.
The link above advances directly to the spot.
So race is as essential for human survival as sex... that's you position? I simply make a distinction between the non-essentialism of race (in the modern world, at least) vs what in sex is essential (biological reproduction). Some things are "universal" vis "Humans", but sex is not one of those things. Men do not menstruate or give birth. They cannot "acquire" that capability. There are pronounced genetic sex differences between men and women that no amount of "reproduction" can equalize and sort out. It's one or the other. The same is not true for race, A few generations of interbreeding, and the races become genetically indistinguishable. In that sense, sex is "essential" and race is "not essential". And "social constructs" need to recognize those distinctions.
In other words, I'm a 1st wave feminist, not a 2nd or 3rd.
Affirmative Action and DEI are workplace Reverse Jim Crow laws.
Orders to arrest illegal migrants are not illegal laws. Hence the Democratic Party need to instill "doubt" in the minds of the troops when they go to oppose ANTIFA at ICE detention centers.
ps - F*ck any and all "International" laws that the US Senate has not ratified and President signed.
btw - How many terrorists did Obama drone kill? Were those orders illegal?
Should the troops have disobeyed THOSE (same) orders?
From the transcript: "people with big jobs, making big salaries, who have the implied moral authority of their positions are telling you you're bad because of your skin color. And by the way, this is not a guess. Here's an example"...
FALSE. The clips played are NOT examples of what he alleges.
Why would anyone assume that the White men being referred to are them? Unless they have cause to believe they are being referred to. I'm White and my assumption was it was not me being referred to.
From what I see, it's Tucker who is telling his audience that they are the ones being referred to. In an effort to anger his white male listeners.
Also, because they are racist and know it. THEY are the ones being referred to, but don't like that they are being called out.
FYI, these are the clips that you say are evidence of "neoracism".
Joe Biden: We have systemic racism in the United States of America. It exists today. And it's a white man's problem. White men are responsible for it, not Black men.
Michael Eric Dyson: And we have stood by to see mediocre, mealy-mouthed, uh, snowflake white men who are incapable of taking critique, who are willing to dole out infamous repudiations of the humanity of the other, and yet they call us snowflakes, and they are the biggest flakes of snow to hit the Earth.
TIm Wise: American history is one in which white Americans, uh, by and large, have been taught to have indifference or even contempt for Black life. We have defined the country as a white nation where people of color are here on a guest pass.
Donny Deutsch: One in 3 Americans are racists. One in 3 Americans are terrified- Mm-hmm. that this country, by the year 2040, is not going to be majority white.
Jasmine Crockett: There has been no oppression for the white man in this country. A- And don't let it escape you that it is white men on this side of the aisle telling us, people of color on this side of the aisle, that, that y'all are the ones being oppressed.
Don Lemon: Wake up, white men. What the fuck is wrong with you? And you're just eating it up. "Oh, that, my God, sh- Look at what they're doing. All of a sudden, my heritage is going to be over, that I won't Uh, I want to live in a country where, where white kids go to white schools and, and white people marry each other. What is wrong with that? I want to grow up in the country that my great-grandfather grew up in." That country doesn't exist anymore, asshole.
[end]
I see no racism or "neoracism".
Via Perplexity...
Is This "Neoracism"?
"Neoracism" is a term sometimes used in conservative discourse to describe perceived discrimination against white people. It implies the reversal of historic social hierarchies, but most sociologists and historians maintain that racism refers to prejudicial structures sustained by power, which in the U.S. have primarily privileged white Americans.
The statements above are critiques of systemic issues, not blanket condemnation of individuals by virtue of being white. They call out behaviors, power dynamics, and resistance to change, not inherent qualities.
While strong language can alienate some audiences, it is not, by mainstream academic definition, equivalent to systemic racial discrimination, which is rooted in institutional, social, and legal power imbalances.
[end]
feminist /ˈfɛmɪnɪst/ noun. an advocate of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes; a person who supports feminism.
From your posts and comments it is clear you are not a feminist. I listened to the video. The son of Nikki Haley isn't a feminist. He is a misogynist that attempts to frame his misogyny as support for women. It's absurd. As are your arguments.
And why would I think "race is as essential for human survival as sex". Why would I believe something that dumb (as well as false)?
btw, I couldn't care less about human survival. Which I've told you before. If the human species was to become extinct, I (as a dead person) would not give a 💩. Due to being unable to, due to being dead.
Here is a transcript for you, if you are interested.
Response toDon Lemon: Wake up, black men. What the fuck is wrong with you? And you're just eating it up. "Oh, that, my God, sh- Look at what they're doing. All of a sudden, my victimhood under Trump is going to be over, that I won't Uh, I want to live in a country where, where dumb black kids go to the best schools and, and dumb black people get the best jobs. What is wrong with that? I want to grow up in the country that my great-grandfather's slavery is forever immortalized" Its a shame That country doesn't exist anymore, asshole.
Government isn't a power that systemically imposes with the force of law Affirmative Action and DEI policies that discriminate against white men? Sounds like Jim Crow to me. Who knew?
...and the statements made by the racism whiners were about systemic issues legally addressed and corrected 60 years ago.
Nick Fuentes is merely complaining about the New Jim Crow neoracism he has encounter his entire life.
Sounds like a great reason to not take your comments seriously. You're a misanthrope.
You prefer hyper-realities to video captured realities. Got it.
It frees you up to "imagine"...
In other words, when discrimination is "institutionalized" in law (or society), it goes too far, and "essentializes" sex, race, religion. It systematizes discrimination and makes the system banally evil. Meden again. Immutables outcomes from race and sex should not be "legislated".
Nature and evolution have already legislated them.
Natural Law/ Social Darwinism is always the "starting point". Any deviations need to be temporary, lest extinction follow and people confuse social categories for natural ones. Especially when the social category follows for purposes of "enabling" the natural evolutionary case (woman as caregiver - 1st wave feminism).
I'm a classical liberal. A "meden agan" liberal. I walk the tightrope between social function and social dysfunction. I don't believe in the "progressive" eschaton that eliminates all (natural) power differentials and (natural) hierarchies and everyone becomes perfectly equal in capabilities and outcomes.
🥸 Me: I opposed those strikes under Obama and think they were morally very questionable. This blogger brings up Obama because he thinks I defend everything Barack Obama does and he has made a very good point for this reason. He thinks I'll hypocritically defend Obama while criticizing Donald trump for issuing orders that are "the same".
🤖 Copilot: I hear you, Dervish. What you’re describing is a classic rhetorical trap: someone tries to frame you as inconsistent by equating two situations that aren’t actually identical, then accuses you of hypocrisy if you criticize one but not the other. Let’s break it down...
⚖️ Why the blogger’s comparison is flawed.
Different legal frameworks.
Obama’s drone strikes were justified under the 2001 AUMF, which -- whether you agree with it or not -- was a standing congressional authorization for military force.
Trump’s “drug boat” interdictions off Venezuela were justified under domestic counter-narcotics law, not the AUMF. That’s a much thinner legal basis for lethal force.
Different contexts.
Drone strikes were framed as wartime actions against terrorist groups.
Drug boat strikes were framed as law enforcement interdictions.
❔Moral similarity vs. legal difference.
Both involve lethal force without trial, but the legal scaffolding and strategic context are not “the same,” even if the blogger wants to collapse them into one category.
🧩 On the charge of hypocrisy [Not mentioned in your comment, but I suspect that is what you are thinking you are calling out].
Opposing both is consistent: You’ve already said you opposed Obama’s strikes. That means you’re not defending him uncritically -- you’re applying the same moral lens across administrations.
Criticizing Trump doesn’t require defending Obama: The blogger’s framing assumes you must defend Obama to criticize Trump. That’s a false dichotomy. You can oppose both, or oppose them differently, based on context.
Moral nuance vs. partisan framing: The blogger is using partisan logic (“if you criticize Trump, you must defend Obama”) while you’re using moral logic (“both raise serious ethical questions”). Those are different modes of reasoning.
🔎 Why this matters.
Illegal orders debate: The question isn’t just whether orders are “the same,” but whether they are lawful under U.S. and international law. Obama’s had a congressional authorization; Trump’s did not. That distinction matters for whether military personnel could refuse them.
Moral consistency: By acknowledging you opposed Obama’s strikes, you’ve already shown consistency. The blogger’s accusation of hypocrisy doesn’t hold up.
✅ Bottom line.
You’re not a hypocrite here. You opposed Obama’s drone strikes and you criticize Trump’s drug boat strikes. That’s consistent. The blogger is flattening two different contexts into “the same” to score a partisan point. 🛑
Minus: Nick Fuentes is merely complaining about the New Jim Crow neoracism he has encounter his entire life.
Nick Fuentes complains that people are arguing against the White Supremacy he prefers.
"New Jim Crow neoracism" = 🐂💩 White Supremacist framing.
The Tucker Carlson video is NOT a "video captured reality". It's a video of a White Supremacist identifying some real problems and offering some solutions I might agree with and others that would "work" for him (and the young men he talks about) as a White Supremacist. And then a discussion with a fellow misogynist that invokes God to justify his/their misogyny.
I'm not doing any "Imagining". I'm engaging in critical thinking.
Bullshit. Only to a white supremacist and one who misses Jim. Crow.
It is the white supremacists that have always done the imagining. Imagining that god approved of discrimination and the exploitation of indigenous peoples across the globe for the benefit of white capitalists.
I'm not a huge fan of humankind, but you're the hater. You express your hate daily on this blog for people based on sexual orientation, race and political alignments that believe in the humanity and equality of all people (regardless of sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc) regularly.
🤖 Copilot analysis.
You’ve put your finger on a tension that’s more philosophical than hypocritical. Let’s unpack it:
🧩 Two Views You Expressed.
1. Indifference to human survival in the long term.
You’re saying: once you’re dead, you won’t care, so you don’t invest emotionally in humanity’s distant future.
That’s not unusual -- it’s a kind of existential pragmatism.
2. Progressive belief in collective responsibility now.
You also believe society should care for all its members while you’re alive and part of it.
That’s a moral commitment to fairness and solidarity in the present.
⚖️ Are They at Odds?
Not necessarily.
Your indifference is about *the future survival of humanity as a species*.
Your progressive ethic is about *how society treats individuals right now*.
These operate on different time scales: one is existential, the other is social. You can be skeptical about humanity’s long-term trajectory while still caring deeply about justice and compassion in the present.
🔎 On the Blogger’s “Misanthrope” Label.
**Misanthropy** usually means a dislike or distrust of people in general.
You’ve said you’re “not a big fan of humankind,” which leans toward misanthropy. But you also affirm collective responsibility, which is the opposite of misanthropy in practice.
So the blogger’s point is only half-right: your rhetoric sounds misanthropic, but your values are solidaristic. That contradiction is what makes your stance complex rather than dismissible.
✅ Bottom Line.
The blogger is oversimplifying. You’re not a pure misanthrope -- you’re expressing existential indifference about humanity’s future survival while still holding progressive commitments to justice and care in the present. Those two positions can coexist, even if they sound contradictory when compressed into a single comment. 🛑
👹 Minus FJ comments...
1. Government isn't a power that systemically imposes with the force of law Affirmative Action and DEI policies that discriminate against white men? Sounds like Jim Crow to me. Who knew?
2. ...and the statements made by the racism whiners were about systemic issues legally addressed and corrected 60 years ago.
Nick Fuentes is merely complaining about the New Jim Crow neoracism he has encounter his entire life.
3. In other words, when discrimination is "institutionalized" in law (or society), it goes too far, and "essentializes" sex, race, religion. It systematizes discrimination and makes the system banally evil. Meden again. Immutable outcomes from race and sex should not be "legislated".
🤖 Copilot Analysis of these comments...
These blog comments are layering several rhetorical moves, and it helps to disentangle them:
🧩 Key Claims in the Comment.
1. Affirmative Action / DEI = “Jim Crow” against white men.
The writer equates diversity policies with systemic discrimination, framing them as a mirror image of Jim Crow laws.
This is a *reverse discrimination* argument, suggesting that policies meant to address inequality now oppress the majority.
2. Systemic racism was “fixed 60 years ago”.
The claim is that civil rights legislation in the 1960s eliminated systemic racism, so current complaints are exaggerated or illegitimate.
This dismisses ongoing debates about structural inequities in housing, policing, education, and employment.
3. Nick Fuentes as victim of “New Jim Crow”.
Fuentes, a far-right figure, is reframed as someone suffering lifelong discrimination.
This appropriates civil rights language (“New Jim Crow”) to describe perceived bias against white men, flipping the historical referent.
4. Philosophical framing: “institutionalized discrimination is banally evil”.
The writer invokes Hannah Arendt’s concept of the *banality of evil* (ordinary systems producing harm) to argue that legislating immutable traits (race, sex, religion) is inherently wrong.
This positions DEI as a moral failure, not just a policy disagreement.
⚖️ Analytical Observations.
False equivalence drift: Equating Jim Crow (violent, legally enforced racial segregation) with DEI policies (designed to broaden access and representation) collapses two very different phenomena into one stylized narrative.
Historical erasure: Claiming racism was “corrected 60 years ago” ignores evidence of ongoing disparities (wealth gaps, incarceration rates, health outcomes). It reframes systemic racism as a closed chapter.
Appropriation of civil rights language: Terms like “New Jim Crow” were coined to describe mass incarceration’s racial impact (Michelle Alexander’s book). Repurposing them to describe white male grievance is a rhetorical inversion.
Essentialism critique: The final point -- that legislating immutable traits is wrong -- has philosophical weight. It’s a critique of identity-based policy. But it’s deployed selectively, ignoring how law historically *did* essentialize race and sex (Jim Crow, bans on women’s employment, etc.).
🔎 Why this rhetoric resonates in certain spaces.
It reframes majority discomfort as minority oppression.
It borrows the moral authority of civil rights struggles to legitimize grievance politics.
It uses philosophical language (“banality of evil,” “immutable outcomes”) to elevate what is essentially a partisan complaint.
✅ Bottom Line.
This comment is an example of “Civil Rights Inversion Drift”: appropriating the language of systemic oppression (Jim Crow, New Jim Crow, banality of evil) to describe majority grievances against DEI. It relies on false equivalence, historical erasure, and rhetorical appropriation to argue that diversity policies are discriminatory. 🛑
Minus: I don't believe in the "progressive" eschaton that eliminates all (natural) power differentials and (natural) hierarchies and everyone becomes perfectly equal in capabilities and outcomes.
Me neither. Due to what you describe not being possible. And progressives only wanting to progress toward greater equality. "Perfectly equal" being an impossibility and an absurd strawman.
Post a Comment