Hegemony in the US

[WuWei]

@Konssurvative1

@Paul_Thomson

Why do you think people believe that because a group is in the majority in government they also have supremacy?

Because in this country we have an undying need to feel Supreme over others.

That is human nature. We always want our group to be the decider.

[Konssurvative1]

Doesn’t make it acceptable or right. We should try to be better, no?

[WuWei]

@Konssurvative1

Doesn’t make it acceptable or right. We should try to be better, no?

Better than nature? Don’t set yourself up for failure.

[Konssurvative1]

That’s not true either. I know about 10 black people who voted for Trump.

[Konssurvative1]

I never do…I always strive to be better

[Axxowiz]

It’s pretty easy with a little research to see with a few graphs where these loopy replacement theories start. Aka ( Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) which changed the preference of Europeans coming to America and replaced it with immigration from poorer countries.

I don’t think for a second think Democrats with that law were trying to do something highly mischievous and thought most of these poor migrants would move across all 50 states. Instead for the most part they concentrate in the same few states and big cities tilting the politics of the state leftward, which is great if your a leftist not so great as a conservative. California is a good example.

It’s not hard to see with charts like this were wacky conspiracies start because before the great migration from the south before 1965 California many times had a Republican base, even a Republican president that came from there in the 80’s that is never going to happen again.

There will never be another Republican US Senator, governor, or president from California. It’s a state dominated by leftists through immigration which I understand it’s a sensitive subject but a little research one can see were this came from, Carlson and others didn’t just wake up one day and start this stuff out nowhere they can see the charts to and imho should be allowed to object to it.

And it didn’t need to be about race which through politics has been weaponized throughout the decades to garner votes at the cost of social cohesion. I remember in 2016 on election night reading countless articles and watching media talking heads asking “Hispanics what did you do”? Why did you vote for a Republican they don’t like you, same with blacks. Look at how Elders and other blacks have been treated that dare to be a Republican, first time ever I heard the word coconut used as a racist slur was when I moved to Seattle from many coworkers meaning white on the inside black on the outside.

One side dismisses and unsustainable 200,000 migrants coming in each month the size of the city of Chattanooga as if it was a nothing to see here as long as that keeps happening your going to get people like Carlson asking questions, what is the goal here. That level of illegal migration is not supported by republicans or independents only democrats support these numbers. It feels as if the end goal is to make republicans as relevant as libertarians are.

[Hexenbiest]

I love leftsts reasoning on people like Carlson who is asking questions, not making policy. In the meantime this is the guy the left has just voted in again as PM of Canada.

You guys really need to look inside sometime, about every democrat major leader in Virginia has done blackface, and the blacks that run as republicans are laughed at, mocked, and have racial slurs thrown at them because they are not voting the way they should be voting.

[tnt]

@WuWei

@Dem

I think what Sneaky is getting at, is that democracy leads to majority hegemony. Whites being the majority, therefore means white hegemony exits according to the people who view things through a racial lens.

Sneaky feels looking at it through a racial lens, is a mistake, and we should be looking at it through cultural lens.

When people are talking about replacement, we should be looking past, the surface view of race they talk about. But at replacing power, ideology, culture; hegemony.

@WuWei correct me if I’m misunderstanding your point.

Pretty much. You can’t argue against the majority having hegemony in a democracy.

Thank the Good Lord we live in a republic.

The “war” is not race, it’s culture. Bigger picture individualism vs collectivism, just as it has always been.

“Race” is a social construct designed from Day 1 to divide; on what I insist is the most trifling trait of all. Initially it was used to subjugate and oppress the black race. For hegemony. Thesis.

Now it is being used to take hegemony from the majority. Antithesis.

There will be no synthesis. There never is.

Agreed - the majority has hegemony, but that hegemony is based on political majorities, not race. I think that’s the simplest way to put what I have been trying to say.

(This discussion really should be preceded by one in which we define ‘culture’, but I’ll skip that for now.)

While I am all for looking beyond race in many ways, politically, I suspect basing your efforts on culture rather than other delineations like race, or socioeconomic standing is less valuable.

Two people living in NYC, or NOLA could share the culture of that geography but still vote reliably different. And these differences might be linked to race or earnings, or education.

So from a purely practical standpoint, I don’t think politics will ever look purely at culture. It has to drill down to be affective.

When a party reaches out to groups - be they ‘grouped’ by race (ie: black americans) or geography (ie:rural americans) or economics (rich or poor americans), of course they are doing so purely so that they can retain hegemony. But that hegemony, as we discussed, is not based on their race. It is based on their politics.

This therefore does not make them racists. They are seeking votes from groups of people - that they may well define by race, or any other number of things - purely to retain their own power, based on the political system we operate in.

IOW, just because Trump used race to stir his base (deriding latin american migrants to get white americans to vote for him) that in an of itself doesn’t make him a racist. He is a politician trying to win. You can certainly argue that his willingness to go there, to use that strategy, says something about his personality…but using the definitions of race alone…I don’t think so.

Likewise, democratic efforts to mobilize disenfranchised groups defined by race (ie: black africans, hispanic americans, asian americans) is not an effort to prove these races supreme (which I don’t think you are implying) or to really do anything but get them into the process for their own political advantage. Again, you might suggest their tactics are not consistent with your own sense of propriety, but they are not elevating any race or dergrading any race.

I feel like I had another point, but I’ve lost it now…

Re: replacement theory…I’ll have to think about that some more.

Back to the yard…grass ain’t gonna cut itself.

[tnt]

@WuWei

Races are not incompatible. Cultures can be.

Culture is not simply a behavioral manifestation of race, although we often treat it that way.

Culture is important. Race is trifling.

I thought you actually said just the opposite…

But while I agree with your views on culture being more important than race, in a political context, culture lacks value.

Two american voters sharing the culture of being a New England native could vote drastically different.

And again, my original note - before this conversation could progress we would have to agree on a definition of culture.

[Jezcoe]

@Axxowiz

1965 California many times had a Republican base, even a Republican president that came from there in the 80’s that is never going to happen again.

I think that you are leaving out something in that analysis.

[tnt]

That does it. I will never vote for that guy to be the PM of Canada. Thanks for that.

[TommyLucchese]

@Hexenbiest

I love leftsts reasoning on people like Carlson who is asking questions, not making policy.

He’s just asking question saying neo Nazi replacement theory is definitely factually happening.

Charlie Kirk is just asking questions saying we need a citizen militia to protect white people in America.

[WuWei]

@Konssurvative1

I never do…I always strive to be better

Better than what?

[WuWei]

@tnt

Agreed - the majority has hegemony, but that hegemony is based on political majorities, not race.

Is it? Then why do you go on about “white supremacy”?

@tnt

While I am all for looking beyond race in many ways, politically, I suspect basing your efforts on culture rather than other delineations like race, or socioeconomic standing is less valuable.

And what am I to do with this?

[tnt]

I’ve never suggested white supremicists are running either major party.

White supremicists are interested in power based in race alone. Not political victory.

[WuWei]

I’m beginning to see your problem. You seem to think it is the political parties seeking hegemony and they impose it.

That’s incorrect.

White, High SES college educated already have hegemony in both parties

[WuWei]

@tnt

But while I agree with your views on culture being more important than race, in a political context, culture lacks value.

How does race have value?

[WuWei]

@tnt

Two american voters sharing the culture of being a New England native could vote drastically different.

Based on what?

[WuWei]

@tnt

I’ve never suggested white supremicists are running either major party.

White supremicists are interested in power based in race alone. Not political victory.

Where did you get that? It doesn’t even make sense.

[tnt]

And are they doing this based on their race? Or for their interest in power? (For either good or bad motives)