Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just now, MisterSwig said:

I'm trying to understand what you meant.

"It's OK to be white" is what flashes through my mind when halfwit protesters scream that all white people are somehow guilty of anything and it gets ongoing attention from media organizations. It's not something I would think otherwise. And no, "the protesters" are not "black people." It's any screaming idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JASKN said:

It's OK to be white" is what flashes through my mind when halfwit protesters scream that all white people are somehow guilty of anything and it gets ongoing attention from media organizations. It's not something I would think otherwise.

When they do that, I think that they are being racist for judging me based on skin color. I refuse to accept their underlying premise that skin color matters. I value my mind too much to let racial politics infect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MisterSwig said:

I value my mind too much to let racial politics infect it.

I suppose it could be psychologized back the other way, too. I don't feel my mind has been infected, so you assuming that it has been infected only speaks to your own psychology about this issue... no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JASKN said:

I don't feel my mind has been infected, so you assuming that it has been infected only speaks to your own psychology about this issue... no?

That's good. I was only speaking for myself. I can't assess your thinking, because you haven't explained what the meme means to you. You've repeated it a couple times, and talked about the racists on the Left. But can you describe your interpretation of what the meme means to you? Does it help you think that you aren't guilty of oppressing blacks?

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this picked up by the lamestream media today. There are plenty of divides within the Objectivist community regarding race and racism, as this thread has made clear, but with respect to this particular meme, I believe it is possible to bridge the divide by recognizing that communication (as all else) takes place within a context.

Truth-telling, being a type of communication, does too. While it may be true that "Anne Frank is hiding upstairs in the attic," proclaiming this truth may not be moral in every conceivable circumstance. The context matters. And while it is certainly true that "it is okay to be white" (in the sense that skin color does not matter to one's character or morality), if the context is that this is a meme being propagated by neo-Nazis for the purpose of furthering their agenda, then the specific decision to participate in that meme ought to take that context into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

And while it is certainly true that "it is okay to be white" (in the sense that skin color does not matter to one's character or morality), if the context is that this is a meme being propagated by neo-Nazis for the purpose of furthering their agenda, then the specific decision to participate in that meme ought to take that context into account.

The Nazis are absolutely winning this meme campaign. You can't fight IOTBW by accepting it and then claiming it means the opposite of what it actually says. Words have definitions. The meme has everything to do with skin color mattering. That is the whole point of it.

The phrase does not imply anything about character or morality, except that you should take some pride in being white, and you should not feel bad about it. The Nazis don't care what justification you use for embracing the message, as long as you embrace it.

I still have not seen any news organization trace the meme to any group prior to 4chan. Perhaps they don't want to talk about the Church of Creativity or the band Aggressive Force. Perhaps they buy the idea that the pranksters at 4chan coincidentally arrived at the same exact meme as Nazis and are having a bit of a laugh at the Left's expense. This is unfortunate, because it's not the whole story, or even the most important one. This story is about indoctrinating people with the idea that white folk are crashing the racial politics street party, and they're coming for their slice of the protest pie.

Quote

“I’ve never been on the websites you mentioned below. We were commenting on a story that ran in The Washington Post,” Carlson told Newsweek through the spokesperson. "But for the record, it is OK to be white. Just as it’s OK to be black, Hispanic, Asian or any other race or color God created. None of it is a choice. To suggest there is something shameful or not OK about anyone’s race is the very definition of racism.” 

What is the opposite of being ashamed of your race? Tucker Carlson gets it.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

The phrase does not imply anything about character or morality, except that you should take some pride in being white, and you should not feel bad about it. The Nazis don't care what justification you use for embracing the message, as long as you embrace it.

The meme doesn’t necessarily suggest pride.

 

4 hours ago, DonAthos said:

And while it is certainly true that "it is okay to be white" (in the sense that skin color does not matter to one's character or morality), if the context is that this is a meme being propagated by neo-Nazis for the purpose of furthering their agenda, then the specific decision to participate in that meme ought to take that context into account.

The way to change the “context” of a majority/loudest groupthink is to completely ignore it, cutting it off at its legs with indifference. Imagine if the majority did this instead, would anyone still feel the need to care about the “context”?

I suppose it really depends on your purpose. If you’re concerned with changing the minds of non-thinking idiots, I guess it would make sense to care about groupthink. But I doubt your caring is going to make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JASKN said:

I suppose it really depends on your purpose. If you’re concerned with changing the minds of non-thinking idiots, I guess it would make sense to care about groupthink. But I doubt your caring is going to make a difference.

Even if a source of "groupthink" were hijacked, that in itself would not alter a general tendency for "groupthink." A far better course would be to identify the thinkers and gravitate towards the opportunities that offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On whether the meaning suggests pride: the context of a slogan has consequences for determining its meaning. If I said "I have a standup view of women," I might be praised for virtue signaling, but if I'm Bill Clinton and I say it, perhaps a different meaning is suggested. Context is a part of meaning.

So while the phrase itself doesn't suggest pride, when said by a neo-Nazi it does now.

And on groupthink, is it true that Objectivist are entirely exempt from this tendency, especially when it comes to pissing "the left" off? Well that's not objective either. Indeed, it's better to identify particular thinkers and particular stated philosophy. Like the alt right and its proponents, the ones who started this campaign: they want to deport all non-whites. Identifying that is a crucial part of examining the ad campaign, ignoring it just sounds like the opposite of rational analysis: a blank-out.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2046 said:

So while the phrase itself doesn't suggest pride, when said by a neo-Nazi it does now.

Part of the context is the origin and usage of phrases. As far as I can tell IOTBW started in 2000 as a punk song by the skinhead band Aggressive Force. Here is a taste of the lyrics:

IMG_20171119_191902.jpg.80f37c6bf4cbcd16c563275471c067cd.jpg

In 2008 the band's singer, Brian Sawyer, died, and fans vowed to keep his memory alive.

FB_IMG_1509923137702.jpg.8670a476975c282e3f013dcf82fed09d.jpg 

Around 2009, the white nationalist Church of Creativity created a flyer campaign called "It's Alright To Be White," with some of the very same white pride messages found in the Aggressive Force song.

Qyy3t2TmIeH4HYVhPiBwRWtx0JRUL248hC2qw0FsAy8.jpg.c0eb9609b6b9c3d7df1fd223b4ba7958.jpg

The church recently updated this flyer after the 4chan campaign to include new contact information.

2-9-021117101433.thumb.png.ee2ff4cc643f49af41c1af8d4f01c478.png

Additionally, five years ago, Aggressive Force fans uploaded a racist video for the song "It's okay to be white."

IMG_20171107_150952.jpg.f603044a06930e087f0850b707e728f5.jpg

A couple other YouTubers had uploaded the song, including the white nationalist Blood and Honour social group from Canada.

Also, in 2014, the popular neo-Nazi forum Stormfront used "It's Alright To Be White" in their advertising.

wpww-6.jpg.8ed68155ff2965358f605a327188b654.jpg

With this etymological and historical context, members of 4chan created the IOTBW real-world flyer and online meme campaign last October, and they began spreading the message around high schools and college campuses worldwide. At first these people posted the flyers anonymously at night. Now there are popular TV and Internet personalities who embrace the statement yet reject any connection to racism. The widespread acceptance or tolerance of this meme among conservatives has created an environment for more aggressive white pride propaganda. Already, less than a month after its mainstreaming, the IOTBW meme is morphing into the WP meme.

CLFQelKUEAATnwx.jpg.f45e37181e29101406b73a936e681f31.jpg

What's next: WPWW?

20poland-superJumbo.thumb.jpg.1244c0fa9ef29d315ebe58067a99dd21.jpg

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JASKN said:

The way to change the “context” of a majority/loudest groupthink is to completely ignore it, cutting it off at its legs with indifference. Imagine if the majority did this instead, would anyone still feel the need to care about the “context”?

I suppose it really depends on your purpose. If you’re concerned with changing the minds of non-thinking idiots, I guess it would make sense to care about groupthink. But I doubt your caring is going to make a difference.

Context matters. No quotes around context are necessary.

Look, you can wear a swastika and say that you just think it's a nifty looking symbol. No need to bow to "groupthink" (which probably does deserve those quotation marks). But you're going to be interpreted as communicating something you may not intend, because the context that you've decided doesn't matter both exists and matters, whether you recognize it or not.

If we defend Confederate statues and flags on the grounds of their historical significance (or whatever), and help to spread neo-Nazi propaganda on the grounds that the "literal" content of the message is acceptable (willfully ignoring the very context we're discussing, including the reason for the meme's initial propagation), then we can't cry foul when we're lumped together with the alt-right. It's not "non-thinking idiots" who will draw this conclusion, but thinking people who are trying to make sense of foreign belief systems and unfamiliar groups, and who don't necessarily have the time or inclination to personally interview every individual marching at the "it's okay to be white" rally alongside the actual skinheads and KKK.

And furthermore, we don't actually want the neo-Nazis to be successful in their efforts, which we know are directed towards ends which are anti-life. We ought not help them, and spreading their memes thus seems contrary to our own social and political ends, whatever other moral exemptions we may wish to claim for ourselves.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 2046 said:

ignoring it just sounds like the opposite of rational analysis: a blank-out.

It doesn't matter how it sounds, what matters is whether I provided reasoning.

6 hours ago, DonAthos said:

It's not "non-thinking idiots" who will draw this conclusion, but thinking people who are trying to make sense of foreign belief systems and unfamiliar groups, and who don't necessarily have the time or inclination to personally interview every individual marching at the "it's okay to be white" rally alongside the actual skinheads and KKK.

And furthermore, we don't actually want the neo-Nazis to be successful in their efforts, which we know are directed towards ends which are anti-life. We ought not help them, and spreading their memes thus seems contrary to our own social and political ends, whatever other moral exemptions we may wish to claim for ourselves.

When you're trying to make sense of anything, whether it's a news story or whatever, do you rest on mental shortcuts? Or, do you take those shortcuts for what they are, and actively update your thoughts when new information is found? Especially when you suspect you don't have the full story, you're not writing things off as concluded, right? A person who does otherwise is a non-thinking idiot to the extent they are instead fine with those fuzzy "conclusions." Even if they're "nice," "hardworking," or "non-racist" - they may be civilized, but it's not really their doing, is it? They're not active participants in their own lives, the groupthink will determine things for them instead. Thinking individuals shouldn't waste their time on groupthinkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grames, the point is that there is no -rational- reply to discussions on race. Using a phrase made by neo-Nazis ("it's okay to be white") would willfully ignore the clear philosophical roots. Part of their means is to use benign-sounding phrases without calling for critical thinking on race. They would rather claim "white pride" is just as valid as "black pride". The rational reply is to say the deep errors of racial pride, and pointing out the arbitrariness of race as a classifier. No one here would say there is an original sin of a race - we'd all rather eliminate racism. You're good about epistemology, but it looks like you are taking one bite out of the alt-right message until one day you'll be the Heidegger of Objectivism. You posting an image without explanation suggests you are throwing away rational discussion on race.

Wouldn't you rather engage an argument or tell us your own position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. It's as if one points out an example of anti-white bias, ergo joining with neo-Nazi campaign becomes okay. Earlier they said if the campaign was "Air is good" and it turned out to be a Clinton group behind the scenes, they would react with horror and work to expose the propaganda. 

I think there's explanations for this. Wittgenstein said that when otherwise sane and rational people say crazy, obviously false things, it's because they are in the grip of a picture. Thomas Kuhn wrote about an experiment that was performed by some psychologists investigating cognitive biases, where the subjects were given brief, controlled exposure to certain playing cards. Most of the cards were normal, but some had been altered, such as a red six of spades and a black four of hearts. The cards were turned over and the subjects identified them as normal, red or back of whatever. Without awareness of the anomaly, it was fitted into a conceptual category prepared by prior experience. They were not prepared to recognize the aberration because it diverged from a lifetime of prepared conception. Only after repeated exposure did some subjects notice that there was something wrong with it. A few subjects never did.

In other words, a mind accustomed to working with certain frameworks will have trouble recognizing deviations from that framework. If one expects "the left" to be the major threatening force to their political identity, anti white, anti market, and "the (alt)right" answer as pro white, pro freedom, pro borders that is what one will see.

Even if contrary evidence is introduced, it will be dismissed as nonessential. That's why they don't care when I introduce a hypothetical benign Clinton slogan. Clinton is "left," enemy, "white" is what we are, defend, good. It doesn't register as hypocrisy because they are in the grip of a picture. The left is the threat. The neo-Nazis are rightwing and they're not a threat, they're just misguided goofballs of the right. And we are "on the right" because we oppose the left. The fact that neo-Nazis started this campaign can be dismissed then. It literally becomes cognitively invisible.

I think the picture is one where they see a left faction and a right faction, and they see themselves as part of this right faction. They have not dismissed individualism, in their minds, they just can't see the contradictions with it. Those become invisible, we must fight "the left." Doesn't matter if the slogan is neo-Nazi, we expect the left to be wrong and anti white and the right to oppose them. They see what they expect, just like the card experiment.

After all, millions of Americans are in the grip of the same picture, for example when they vote and support Republicans because they are "pro free market" or when they vote Democrat because they are "pro little guy." It doesn't matter when Reps and Dems both support corporate statism, that becomes an invisible background. Reps use free market rhetoric and Dems use humanitarian rhetoric, and so that's what people expect to see.

Im just trying to think of how we can both see the same thing and come up with two different viewpoints.

There is also the concept of "entryism," where a smaller political movement attempts to capture a larger one and seize its resources or divert its message. Left wing radicals have been using entryism successfully, and now white nationalist groups are targeting libertarians. They will inevitably succeed on the margins, as many libertarians and Objectivists too lack rational defense of their views, and see themselves as a part of the same "right" or "anti left" faction, rather than as primarily individualists. As long as you're opposing those pesky "SJWs," they literally blank out the white nationalist connection, it just doesn't even register.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2046 said:

The left is the threat. The neo-Nazis are rightwing and they're not a threat, they're just misguided goofballs of the right.

That is a true statement. Neo-Nazis are not a threat in this country. They're just there, they have no political power or influence whatsoever to enact their agenda. The left is very much a threat in this country, and is entrenched in the Deep State. So who do you think we will spend most of our time attacking?

 

5 hours ago, 2046 said:

And we are "on the right" because we oppose the left. The fact that neo-Nazis started this campaign can be dismissed then. It literally becomes cognitively invisible.

Denouncing neo-Nazis? Fine, I denounce them. Now that I've mowed the lawn, can I put out the raging housefire the left has started in this country--including their anti-white bias? How do you propose countering their anti-white bias? If not memes, what do I have your permission to use?

Also, it isn't just anti-white bias. It's anti-exceptionalism bias. It affects Asians too.

DOJ launches probe against Harvard for its affirmative action policies that exclude Asian students
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/harvard-faces-doj-probe-over-affirmative-action-policies-1511260380

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You posting an image without explanation suggests you are throwing away rational discussion on race.

And your failure to grasp what the image is trying to convey suggests that you aren't thinking through this all the way. Here, let me explain the joke. Grames is pointing out that all "race" discussions led by the left end up turning into anti-white discussions. If you are a white person, there is nothing that you can possibly do (or refrain from doing) that won't get you branded a racist by certain segments of the left. They aren't anti-racist; they're just anti-white.

By failing to acknowledge that all of the talk of race in this country is skewed against one particular segment of the population, you are essentially giving your sanction as the victim. The joke is on you.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Craig24 said:

I'll denounce white supremacy until it goes away but what do I after that?  The left is not going to believe me and they will call me a racist because I'm not one of them.  

That's why there is no point in denouncing white supremacy, as Trump proved when he denounced David Duke over. and over. and over again... yet they still called him a racist. Denouncing white supremacy is essentially an act of cunnilingus that the right is forced to perform on the left for nothing in return. Excuse the vulgarity, but we gain NOTHING by denouncing neo-Nazis except wasting our time... and pleasing the left that our own ranks are divided. I'm not a white supremacist, but I'm not going to waste my time fighting them on an irrelevant, backwater front of the culture war. The left is the biggest threat to our country and we should never lose sight of our enemy.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Craig24 said:

I'll denounce white supremacy until it goes away but what do I after that?  The left is not going to believe me and they will call me a racist because I'm not one of them.

The Left's racism is a neo-Marxist reaction to white male power. It's a sort of half-hearted racism, whereas the neo-Nazis are full-hearted racists. The deeper problem on the Left is Marxism, which divides people by class identity.

As to which problem is the bigger danger, it's hard to say with certainty. But consider this: Nazism was on track to taking over the world before we invaded Europe; whereas Marxism has imploded in Europe and Asia. And now it's imploding all over America. From a broad historical perspective, Nazi ideology is a long-term threat, and Marxist ideology is a short-term threat. Marxism can't sustain itself because it kills off the strong and powerful. Nazism can sustain itself because it kills off the weak and powerless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

The Left's racism is a neo-Marxist reaction to white male power. It's a sort of half-hearted racism

Maybe some of them only embrace racism "half-heartedly," but many leftists outright call for the demise of white males. I'd dig up examples but I'd encourage you to do your own research.

Quote

whereas the neo-Nazis are full-hearted racists.

No, if they were full-hearted they'd call for extermination camps. Most of them just want to be left alone in a white nation. I say give it to them. If the Indians get reservations, then so should whites, blacks, or any other ethnic group. There's plenty of federal land we could sell them. Make a few bucks, get rid of Nazis. It's a win-win.

Ourania seems to be doing fine. Unless you think that a small town of a thousand peace-loving Afrikaners is a "threat" to South Africa.

Quote

The deeper problem on the Left is Marxism, which divides people by class identity.

As to which problem is the bigger danger, it's hard to say with certainty. But consider this: Nazism was on track to taking over the world before we invaded Europe;

And it had a broken, defeated country to take advantage of: post-WWI Germany which was unfairly saddled with all of the war debt. If you really want to stop Nazism, then you should want to stop America from becoming a cesspool where those sorts of ideas can take root. The left is actively turning America into a cesspool.

Quote

whereas Marxism has imploded in Europe and Asia. And now it's imploding all over America. From a broad historical perspective, Nazi ideology is a long-term threat, and Marxist ideology is a short-term threat. Marxism can't sustain itself because it kills off the strong and powerful.

If neo-Nazi ideology is a long-term threat, where are the neo-Nazi countries today? The only one that you could make a case for is Ukraine with its neo-Nazi battalions and glorification of Nazi war criminals, but Ukraine isn't not long for this earth at the rate they're going.

Quote

Nazism can sustain itself because it kills off the weak and powerless.

You mean by killing off the Jews, the brightest minds in all of Europe? That sort of "weak and powerless?" The Jews might not have had any guns, but they were brilliant scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Hell, Jews practically ran Europe's banking for years because gentiles saw the collection of interest as "sinful."

Nazism would've burnt itself out just like Apartheid South Africa did. No ideology which is anti-liberty is destined to live long on this earth.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

You mean by killing off the Jews, the brightest minds in all of Europe? That sort of "weak and powerless?"

Culturally weak. Also, bright minds are not always put to good use. Karl Marx was a German Jew.

4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

No ideology which is anti-liberty is destined to live long on this earth.

This is blatantly wrong. All of the major religions on Earth are anti-liberty and have produced theocracies and monarchies that lasted for many centuries. Some still exist to this day in the Third World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

And your failure to grasp what the image is trying to convey suggests that you aren't thinking through this all the way.

Who said I didn't grasp what it means? When did I say I support liberal interpretations? When did I say that there weren't people also racist against whites? What I said is there is no rational reply to liberals - there are just memes and bromides that many people might not realize originate in deeply racist ideologies. A rational reply would be to reject racial pride, or offer a philosophy that doesn't rely on bromides and memes.

You seem to think I'm a liberal. You seem to think that I don't notice that talk of race is irrational a lot of the time. But that's wrong. I'm saying no one talks about it rationally. I'm saying not even Grames is meeting standards of rationality.

In other words, I don't feel a need some form of white pride to stand against racism. Same for black pride and all that. I feel a need to obliterate racist thinking altogether.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

No ideology which is anti-liberty is destined to live long on this earth.

Only if good people fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×