Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Angry White Boys: What Do The White Nationalists Actually Want?

A great many of these young men have an interest in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary sociology — they like to think of themselves as “alpha males,” as though they were living in a chimpanzee troop — but it never occurs to them to consider their own status as rejects and failed men in that context. Online fantasy lives notwithstanding, random girls do not want to have sex with them. How do we know this? Because they are carrying tiki torches in a giant dork parade in Charlottesville. There’s no prom queen waiting at home. If we credit their own sociobiological model, they are the superfluous males who would have been discarded, along with their genetic material, by the pitiless state of nature. The fantasy of proving that they are something else is why they dream of violence and confrontation. They are the products of the soft liberal-democratic society they hold in contempt — and upon which they depend, utterly. James Alex Fields Jr. is angry at the world, and angry at his mother, probably for the same reason.

What does an angry white boy want? The fact that they get together to play dress-up — to engage in a large and sometimes murderous game of cowboys and Indians — may give us our answer. They want to be someone other than who they are. That’s the great irony of identity politics: They seek identity in the tribe because they are failed individuals. They are a chain composed exclusively of weak links. What they are engaged in isn’t politics, but theater: play-acting in the hopes of achieving catharsis. Their online personas — knights, Vikings, reincarnations of Charles Martel — will be familiar enough to anybody with a Dungeons and Dragons nerd in his life. But sometimes, role-playing around a card table isn’t enough: Sometimes, you need a stage and an audience. In the theater, actors and audience both can forget ourselves for an hour or two. Under the soft glow of the tiki torches, these angry white boys can be something else — for a night.

Kevin Williamson

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kevin Williamson

The number of crying nazis in the past few days has been absurd.

In past wars, these people would have been cannon fodder - untrainable high testosterone troops to put in the front of the charge to use up the enemy's ammunition. But we can't even use them for that today, we have better options.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kevin Williamson

It's too good not to link the entire thing: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-do-they-want

They're the skinhead nerds from high school.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's too good not to link the entire thing: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-do-they-want

They're the skinhead nerds from high school.

They are the occupant of the Oval Office, so let's not have too much fun dismissing them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

They are the occupant of the Oval Office, so let's not have too much fun dismissing them.

The fact that they're pathetic doesn't necessarily make them less dangerous.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is where anyone with even a tiny bit of self-awareness would have stopped typing.

I'm familiar up close with what BLM opposes. "Social justice" is Occupy Wall Street repackaged. It's too broad, too polluted with grievance addicts and losers.

Which groups of people seeking equality do you believe are undeserving? Or are you, as usual, just reacting to words you don't understand? Hint: It's shorthand for a bunch of specific movements, not a rallying cry.

"Social justice" is a McVocabulary. Lingo of any kind drives me nuts, be it corporate (synergies, "baked in," etc.) or social ("[insert issue] shaming," "'splainin,'" etc.). I am a language bigot. Whatever one you speak, speak it well, not like someone whose exclusive form of communication is texting or Snapchat.

So queer and native people, immigrants and Muslims and everyone else can just fuck off then?

No. But they can all take a page from the gay rights movement. That is the template for how equality is achieved today. In that instance, smart people targeted certain states, got laws passed, anticipated a SCOTUS challenge and framed the issue as one of basic human dignity. There was a tight, coherent argument: Gay people stand in an identical position to straight people, and deserve all the same rights in terms of ability to have a state sanctioned marriage. They had the science and law on their side, their advocacy was simple and compelling, and their strategy was shrewd.

All of those same strategies and arguments can be applied to BLM. In fact, it might even be easier to effect criminal justice reform. A huge change in sentiment, and elected officials making policy, could be reached by simply giving felons the right to vote. Six million felons do not have that right today. A targeted effort to give them back the vote (which, by the way, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum and other principled Rs support) could provide the difference in a Presidential election, and numerous state elections that have a direct impact on policing and justice administration.

Bundling all these causes together and protesting, or being drug into street skirmishes with Nazi morons, is not effective. Calling every slight racism is not effective.

You eat the elephant one bite at a time. BLM's concerns are most acute. Address them, then address the lesser acute issues in order of severity. I think you'll find addressing BLM's concerns, perhaps by getting felons the vote, will create an environment where it will be easier to subsequently address Islamaphobia.

It's not. Lots of people are opposed to greater efforts to combat inequality exactly because they think it means giving money to black people. Heck, Reagan ran on the idea.

You don't frame it as fighting "inequality." That's the language that lumps you in with the Occupy Sorts and grievance fetishists. You frame the argument as "Justice Reform," and you describe the problem accurately: "We are jailing and killing black people in what is clearly a racist justice system. We jail more people per capita than China. This is a grotesque failing on par with those addressed during the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, it is part of the Civil Rights Movement. For some reason, we failed to adequately address it then. We need to do so now." Those are facts. People cannot argue with facts. And the Right wingers who'll try will fail as badly as the dimwits who argued against gay marriage on the basis it violated their "religious liberty."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

They are the occupant of the Oval Office, so let's not have too much fun dismissing them.

Fuck that. If you dress up as a Nazi, and Mel Brooks is not within 300 feet with a bullhorn, directing you through a script, you've assumed the risk.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The fact that they're pathetic doesn't necessarily make them less dangerous.

They'll pull off a Timothy McVeigh type thing. I'm fairly certain of that. But there's no stopping a committed suicide bomber. And making fun of them demoralizes them. Makes them look less attractive to displaced "alphas" who might want to leave the D&D marathon, pick up a tiki torch at Home Depot and joint the next Unite the Right march.

But I agree, they are also dangerous on a micro level. How many luaus have been cancelled for lack of proper lighting?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. But they can all take a page from the gay rights movement. That is the template for how equality is achieved. In that instance, smart people targeted certain states, got laws passed, anticipated a SCOTUS challenge and framed the issue as one of basic human dignity. There was a tight, coherent argument: Gay people stand in an identical position to straight people, and deserve all the same rights in terms of ability to have a state sanctioned marriage. They had the science and law on their side, their advocacy was simple and compelling, and their strategy was shrewd.

The gay rights movement certainly had its share of people who -- fairly -- accused the broader society of homophobia in a way that was not politically popular and turned off many people. You can only say there was a tight, coherent argument and a shrewd strategy by ignoring all of the other messy, incoherent, unshrewd stuff, of which there was a lot. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. When you talk about gay rights, you see it as a legal strategy, and don't really have a story of how hearts and minds were changed. (Hard to fault you for this, because it has been a stunning change over a short period of time, and I'm not sure anyone really predicted it or has explained it well.) With the lessons you draw from gay rights, it seems like you should be concluding that the battle for racial and gender equality is basically won, since post-Brown the Fourteenth Amendment has been understand in a way even stronger than what gays have won. Since that obviously isn't true, maybe you ought to think a little harder about what you've been saying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Maybe when you use a van it's terrorism, and when you use a car, not so much.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

All of those same strategies and arguments can be applied to BLM. In fact, it might even be easier to effect criminal justice reform.

You have simply failed to engage in any way with what racism means.

A huge change in sentiment, and elected officials making policy, could be reached by simply giving felons the right to vote.

There has been progress on restoring voting rights in many states. Which states do you think won't do it voluntarily? That's right, the ones where it's most needed.

A targeted effort to give them back the vote

These efforts are ongoing.

could provide the difference in a Presidential election, and numerous state elections that have a direct impact on policing and justice administration.

Which is why they won't happen in many red states. (Well, that and racism)

You don't frame it as fighting "inequality."

Again, you have zero business lecturing activists on how to do activism. The one thing I know from peripheral contact with some of them is they have given it way more thought than you or I.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(Hard to fault you for this, because it has been a stunning change over a short period of time, and I'm not sure anyone really predicted it or has explained it well.)

I don't think that's right. The most powerful thing the gay rights movement did was emphasize coming out, which led to lots of straight people gradually realizing that there are queer people they care about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have simply failed to engage in any way with what racism means.

Dude, I am highly sympathetic with your overall point of view here, and yet I would rather have dental surgery than engage with the rest of a post that starts like this.

eta:

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, you have zero business lecturing activists on how to do activism. The one thing I know from peripheral contact with some of them is they have given it way more thought than you or I.

I got curious and kept reading. I think we can all agree that until Sebby refines his arguments, he will stick to sharing them for free on a lawyer chatboard and will not charge for them. So you can chalk that point up as a victory.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe when you use a van it's terrorism, and when you use a car, not so much.

Did even face fuck say the car guy was not bad?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d0d2cc83ff58 another fall out of the violence. This guy is 1) a star of The Parking Lot movie, about a bunch of very eccentric people working at a central UVA parking lot, and their battles with entitled yuppies (hi Ty!). 2) a good friend of a former sock here.

FWIW the car guy hit people who knew they were in a potential war zone fighting with lunatics. A terrorist, sure, but driving a van into people who were just going about their day is more like the kid who killed the people at the black church, isn't it? More bigly bad?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Did even face fuck say the car guy was not bad?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d0d2cc83ff58 another fall out of the violence. This guy is 1) a star of The Parking Lot movie, about a bunch of very eccentric people working at a central UVA parking lot, and their battles with entitled yuppies (hi Ty!). 2) a good friend of a former sock here.

FWIW the car guy hit people who knew they were in a potential war zone fighting with lunatics. A terrorist, sure, but driving a van into people who were just going about their day is more like the kid who killed the people at the black church, isn't it? More bigly bad?

Choosing what bigly bad to apply to different intentional murders is always a tough undertaking. There is also something heroic about standing up to these assholes, isn't there?