1) It's within the country's history, as a consistent pattern, that the appeal and breadth of racism increases when economic times are bad. There are many reasons why that is, but among them is the fact that it's an effective tool for the ruling class to placate poor white people, and is cheaper than enabling them to be less poor. For example, the Bacon rebellion saw an alliance of White and Blacks protest the excesses of the elites in 17th century Virginia, so the elites placated the Whites there by cracking down on the Blacks.
Here's a quote from former US President Lyndon Johnson, that describes a lot of American sociology:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opin ... emacy.html
2) There may also, separately, be a fundamental human need for identity. I mean, I'm almost certain that there is, though I don't understand it fully. For most of the post-war era, America had a satisfactory cultural identity, it was a land of ideas where anybody who worked hard could make it and often did. The violent racism against Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, Blacks, Japanese, etc that was common in the early 20th century became much less common. The land was prosperous, and people had a genuine and meaningful identity, "I'm an American" meant something (so did "I'm a man"), something positive, it was the country that helped defeat both fascism and communism, that put a person on the moon, that was responsible for most Nobel prizes and most medical advances such as the eradication of polio, etc. It was a truly wonderful identity to have, and people could share it communally and be happy together.
That identity is largely gone. The country has been economically mismanaged under each of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, Clinton being the worst in my opinion. The statistics that show low unemployment and low inflation are largely doctored. In fact, employment is actually low, and inflation is actually high. Class mobility is dropping. Debts are increasing. Infant mortality and maternal mortality are increasing. The suicide rate is increasing. The American dominance in science and engineering is dropping as well. We're left with parallel epidemics of heroin addiction, video game addiction, sugar addiction, pro sports worship, increased pornography use, social media addiction, and an endless array of anti-depressants, anti-ADHD- and anti-anxiety meds being widely prescribed. The elites of the Roman Empire, with their "bread and circuses" political strategy, never came close to this. Nearly everybody understands deep down that awful war crimes and damages to the natural environment are being done with their tax dollars even if they deny it. So overall, the cultural identity is on weaker ground than it was 20 or 40 years ago, so it is completely unsurprising that racial identity would increase. People have a need for identity.
3) The Democratic Party's, and generally the left's, political strategy has been to build a coalition of victims. It is an absolutely fantastic political strategy in the short-term. However, in the long-term, it is not stable, though most of them do not seem to understand this. You can't have a majority of the population or the effective politically-franchised group being victims, that is logically inconsistent (if they're all victims then they cannot take power), and dehumanizing.
The actual truth is that most of us go through tens of thousands of interactions in our lives, and we are all both victims and predators at various points in time. And for most of us, the balance is close to equal.
I was at a recent book reading by some women author that had the potential to be interesting. She wrote a book about dating. I went to the book reading as a curiosity. I didn't know the details of her thinking. This woman is a writer and a comedian, I didn't find her funny, but most of the room did. Anyway, it was clear that she believes herself to be a victim. She referred to how men have all the power, and that was one of her explanations for how men and women behave differently in relationships.
She is, unfortunately, delusional. This woman, as far as I can tell, is a healthy, wealthy, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, about thirty years old, cis, heterosexual woman. She has a high IQ -- she is paid to be a writer, and she won regional math competitions in high school. She went to fucking Harvard for her undergrad. She said that she's happy never to invest much time into doing things that she's bad at. She is "privileged", she is, in fact, at the ~99th percentile of human privilege. In spite of that, she considers herself a victim. She talked about how dating was hard at Harvard because supposedly, the men there controlled the dating market. She said that "white men, who are about 30% of the population, have all the power, what's up with that?" Her understanding of human relations is ... incomplete. She is in fact more powerful than the vast majority of white men in the world and in the USA. She is just oblivious to that, in part as victim ideology is pervasive.
I suspect that her perception of white men having all of the power is due to her own perceptions of the men around her. She talked about relationships, and how she likes sex and how she wants to marry a rich man. I think that most men are invisible to her. I think that she is completely oblivious to the existence of the white men who work as her plumbers, who run the snowplows near her place in the winter, who carry her wood or whatever when she goes to Home Depot, who is the system administrator at her work place, who work as the police officers and firefighters who keep her neighborhood safe, etc. They're invisible to her. They don't exist. She only notices the white men who are her bosses, her doctors, her lawyers, etc and she thinks "white men have all of the power." Though she won regional math competitions in high school, she doesn't seem to clue in that those guys are in fact not 30% of the population. In a battle between IQ and ideology, ideology almost always wins.
So after listening to her talk, even I was radicalized for a few days. Imagine the effect on other people. Identity politics is a two-edged sword.
i) I'd prefer if the Democratic Party ran on an economics-focused platform. I suspect that they will not.
ii) The killer in this scenario was Australian, not American. I may have some misconceptions but for the most part, life is better in Australia. As in, socio-economic life is better. This guy was likely radicalized by the Internet and American media, which shows how ideas can be powerful. They can affect somebody outside of the regime from which the ideas were developed.
Added in 14 minutes 50 seconds:
Jewish people have historically disproportionately contributed to intellectual, academic, and cultural life in the western countries. Some say that Ashkenazi have a genetic perturbation for higher IQ, but I think that it's largely because Jews have a tradition of community and scholarship, that they predominantly live in cities, and were also historically barred from other areas of civic life.pjhair wrote: ↑4 days agoLeftists and liberals in countries that have pretty much no Jews also support these kinds of policies. How do you explain that? You are employing flawed reasoning and arriving at erroneous conclusions. Are you really blaming Jews for leftists and liberals supporting left leaning policies?
So, for both good and bad ideas out there, all of the ideas and notions that are widespread in the western countries, you'll almost always find that there were some Jewish people involved. Jews have won roughly 25% of Nobel prizes. The list of Jewish philosophers and thinkers includes Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Sigmeund Freud, Albert Einstein, Murray Rothbard, Richard Feynman, etc. Wherever you have either good or bad ideas, you'll likely find a Jewish influence. What @That Guy does is he takes that observations, which he couples to a lot of a fabricated histories and quotes, to come up with the idea that all of society's problems are due to an organized Jewish conspiracy that is operating in the shadows.
The best cure for his Dunning-Kruger syndrome would be for him to study actual history, and to study it rigorously and in detail. He's made some curious comments recently such as "Hitler and Ghandi were best friends" (false) and "No historian ever discusses Germany in the period 1933-1939" (false). However, that would take a lot of effort and would not necessarily be comforting, so he is unlikely to do so. He is unfortunately, as or more likely to go on a shooting spree than he is to actually think about things.