Why The "Proud Boys" /Are/ White Supremacists

submitted by AFutureConcern from self.debatealtright

When the left, such as the Jewish moderator of the first presidential debate Chris Wallace, wishes to demonize a right-wing group or individual, such as the Proud Boys, they paint them as "white supremacists" and then get prominent right-wing politicians to disavow them. Of course, mainstream politicians, even Trump, are fervently against "white supremacy" and so they dutifully disavow these groups even if they align with their own beliefs.

The Proud Boys are a multiracial men's drinking club who are pro-second amendment, pro-masculinity and pro-capitalism. They are pretty liberal and support classical liberalism by virtue of being self-described "Western chauvinists." Their views are pretty mainstream and probably a majority of white men agree with the majority of them.

So why, then, do I claim that they are white supremacists after all? Well, white supremacy doesn't exist. Even those groups on the furthest right, who are banned from major platforms, don't think that whites are superior and should dominate other races. Yet that term is applied to people like Lana Lokteff, Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. Do these people "secretly" think that whites are superior, and are just lying to hide it, as the ADL would have you believe? No - the closest you get to this belief is that they accept that races are different and that whites have higher IQ and lower propensity to violence than some (but not all) other races, but only on average.

Yet these people are the very white supremacists that the Proud Boys supposedly are not. What does it even mean to be a white supremacist, then? The simple reality is, that if the dictionary did as it claims and recorded word usage descriptively, it would read as follows:

White Supremacy (n):

  1. The belief that white people deserve self-determination; or
  2. The belief that "Western civilization" should be preserved

The Proud Boys, in being Western chauvinists, clearly fall under definition (2) here. Hence, without believing in the supremacy of whites, they are nonetheless white supremacists. The only problem here is that the dictionary hasn't caught up to the new definition yet, misleading everyone in the process.

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The biggest threat to Jewish power is white identity and collectivization. This can be only the case because Jews don't kvetch as much when a black person attacks international Jewry or when other races collectivize for their interest with ethnic organizations and nationalist demonstrations. Jews fear white people working together for their own interests the most and like any tyrant they brings foreigners inside the country and gives them artificial status and power in return for being a soldier against the native population. The white supremacy scare is to keep non-whites antagonized against white people and a way to consolidate power by persuading the populace to abnegate their rights in return for security against a imagined threat.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So then what are the mixed-race individuals to you? If they're more white, such as in the case of America where a 20-30% white African-American mixes with someone who is completely white are they allies or upgraded Jewish mercenaries? Could this be subject to change? This is a growing population, so something to consider.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It depends on the admixture and how well they can pass as a white person. Even a octaroon African/White admixture will still look a bit off from the average white person. I think it was Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin that considered a 1/5th African as non-white. Most mixed raced people adopt the identity they visually appear as and the ones they accepted by other people. Other mixed race individuals replace their identity with a non racial identity like religion, consumerism or a political ideology. Some will act as Jewish mercenaries but most will have allegiance to any group.

A few mixed race individuals is not a big problem for a ethnostate, but I would be careful allowing them to have political influence because they sometimes have a chip on their soldier. Ariana Miyamato, Miss Japan, is an African/Japanese admixture hopes for the mixing out of all Japanese in a few hundred years. This is more common than you think with people that are political like how Tim Pool and Roaming Millennial are against racial collectivism because they are hapas. In a ethnostate, the government should caution in allowing mixed raced and foreigners from having cultural and political influence.

[–]ANIKAHirsch 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Race has nothing to do with western culture. Call them Western supremacists instead.

[–]sylla94 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

epic cringe

[–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

?

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    So then change White to that, or something else. White and Black are not races.

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    So, I would attribute the culture to its progenitors, not the race of its progenitors.

    [–]lothrop_evola 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Two books that challenge this belief:

    "Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition" by Kevin Macdonald.

    "The Uniqueness of Western Civilization" by Ricardo Duchesne.

    Books that discuss the strong links between DNA and behaviour/culture:

    "Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are" by Robert Plomin

    "A Troublesome Inheritance" by Nicholas Wade

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Interesting. Can you summarize any of the arguments?

    [–]lothrop_evola 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Individualism by Macdonald argues that over the past approx. six thousand years Northwest Europeans have been genetically evolving in ways to support egalitarianism, individualism and meritocracy. From the Indo-European aristocratic individualism to modern liberalism.

    The Uniqueness of Western Civilization is an extremely pro-Western book that shows the unique traits of white people such as scientific curiosity, risk-taking and how this has built the greatest civilization in world history. He's extremely critical of postmodernism and its constant undermining of western accomplishment.

    Blueprint is basically a recent book on the "Nature over Nurture" debate that stresses the importance of DNA in shaping who we are.

    A Troublesome Inheritance argues that humans have evolved tremendously since splitting off into different racial groups. As a result, each region of the world has developed independently from a cultural perspective, but these cultural differences also have a genetic basis. It was a highly controversial book, but I'd definitely recommend it as it does explain many aspects of human evolution.

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I support western culture and law, but I don't see what that has to do with race. I don't buy the theory of cultural evolution, which is itself is a postmodern theory.

    I would still rather attribute individual advancements to individuals. Perhaps Europeans have more scientific curiosity because the men who invented our modern Science were largely European and highly educated. Arabics invented our modern mathematical system. Does that mean only Arabics can understand math? If an intellectual revolution happens in a geographic area, should I attribute the theories to the mountains?

    You didn't invent science, so it's not like you can take credit for it just because you're white. Be proud of intelligence, be proud of high culture, be proud of organized society, be proud of science. You can contribute to those things.

    Don't be proud of your genetics. You had nothing to do with that.

    Not like I believe human evolution either.. Humans are created beings.

    [–]arainynightinskyrim 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    Oy vey. It does everything to do with western culture, civilization is the product of race, that's why an african, and indian or an asian will never be able to create something even remotely comparable to what whites created.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I wouldn't say that. Japan was very comparable. Europeans didn't even invent gunpowder themselves, they got it from Asia. Besides that, even in Africa during the middle ages, the Mali Empire and Ethiopian Empire built large structures. Exponential technological growth is a thing, so if your society as a whole develops basic scientific foundations first the difference will seem more massive than can be explained by simple racial differences.

    [–]arainynightinskyrim 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Perhaps I phrased badly, I was meaning that various races and ethnicities produce unique civilizations, architecture, art, general design of things, music, food etc.

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I just don't think melanin levels have that great an effect.

    [–]arainynightinskyrim 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    The difference between races is not just about skin color, it's about body type, brain size, iq, facial structure etc.

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Cultural differences and food quality have also been known to influence those things. There's no reason to attribute to race what needn't be.

    [–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Evolution is skin deep

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Evolution? You believe that crack-pot theory?

    [–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Obviously

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Wow.. son of a monkey..

    [–]EuropeanAwakening 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Does race have to do with East Asian cultures? African cultures? Or does this rule only apply to White cultures because non Whites want access to them and by Jews arguing that race doesn't matter for cultural development, non Whites have a place in the West?

    [–]ANIKAHirsch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It has nothing to do with any culture.

    I believe anyone who loves the culture of the West has a place here.

    [–]DoubleReverse 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    So if white people aren't superior to nonwhite people, why should they receive priority treatment?

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    In countries where only whites have created and built it such as in European nations one could make an argument why they should have racial priority treatment. In the US whites should not have priority treatment since blacks were here since the thirteen colonies, for instance, contributing to the building of the nation as well. The US should remain the nation for people to co-exist in the same society while Europe should be for those who want to solely live with other whites.

    [–]DoubleReverse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    But those people are all dead. Even if they did have the same skin color as you, why would we generalize like that?

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Because the people in those European nations worked for their people. It's obviously more than just skin color as well, just like we can tell an Italian from a Scandinavian.

    [–]DoubleReverse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Because the people in those European nations worked for their people.

    But it's not up to you to decide who "their people" are.

    It's obviously more than just skin color as well, just like we can tell an Italian from a Scandinavian.

    Yeah but you call them both white.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    But it's not up to you to decide who "their people" are.

    No, it's just obvious. Americans don't work for China like Germans didn't work for the Greeks.

    [–]DoubleReverse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's not obvious, you're just projecting your own worldview onto them. They might associate their in group with their country, their ethnicity, their ancestry, or any other frame of reference, you can't just assume they identified with the same thing as you.