#western supremacism

[sn4kebites]

the usage of judaism and the co-opting of the jewish plight by the zionist state fills me with even more violent condemnation for the cause then thought possible like its genuinely insanity to know what so many jewish people have been raised to believe about israel.

like ive always held anti-zionist views but thats been primarily because of my understanding of arab geopolitics and how it relates to terrorism in the west. but i feel like im seeing so much first hand experience with how zionist indoctrination works and it's been so harrowing to know whats been going on behind closed doors

[unsolicited-opinions]

Latest Antisemitism From the BBC

The speaker, whose lies are not challenged by the host, Mishal Husain, is the University of Tehran's Mohammed Marandi,

An excerpt:

“Because we are all Amelek – we are inferior, they are the chosen people, they are your allies and it’s basically an extension of the Western empire over the last few hundred years – the civilising mission. Wherever the West has gone, they are civilised and that justifies the destruction of the uncivilised and the barbarians, so this is basically a repeat of history and the only solution is resistance.

“The only way forward is resistance because there is nothing that will stop this Israeli regime because that is the nature of the regime…it believes in ethno-supremacism, it believes they are the chosen people, they have exceptional rights and therefore they have exceptional rights to the whole region. It’s not just Palestine, it goes beyond the borders of Palestine.”

How did the host, Mishal Husain, respond?

“Professor Marandi, thank you very much.”

Then the BBC also platformed him on television. That "interview" can be seen on Twitter here.

These sorts of lies are all that Marandi ever offers any time he appears in any media. I fail to understand why any legitimate news agency would give him airtime, let alone the @#&*ing BBC.

[communist-ojou-sama]

Anyhow, it's no coincidence that the philosopher who coined the term "authoritarianism" and who is seen as the progenitor of anti-authoritarian thought, Hannah Arendt, was so viciously racist that it was disturbing to other mid-century western philosophers. The label of authoritarian, the notion of authoritarianism, is inherently and inexcapably racialized, and until white anarchists confront that their anti-authoritarianism will always just be white supremacism

[haggishlyhagging]

Until recently, the prevailing consensus among anthropologists was that male dominance is universal. It has been noted, for example, "that all contemporary societies are to some extent male-dominated," and that "sexual asymmetry is presently a universal fact of human social life." The more extreme expression of this underlying premise contends that "male supremacism" is "well-nigh universal" and "not a shred of evidence, historical or contemporary, supports the existence of a single society in which women controlled the political and economic lives of men."

This consensus is a reaction to the nineteenth-century argument proposed by Johann Bachofen and Lewis Henry Morgan that there was a time in human cultural evolution when women ruled. Bachofen based his beliefs on archeological remains indicating the importance of female goddesses and queens and on the mythology of ancient civilizations in which females were depicted as powerful. Morgan based his argument on his knowledge of societies like the Iroquois where, he argued, women were in charge of the economic arena, descent was reckoned through women (called matriliny), and women played a crucial role in ritual and political activities.

Because the matriarchy theory has been resurrected as a historical fact by contemporary feminists, anthropologists have searched for societies "in which women have publicly recognized power and authority surpassing that of men." Finding no society in which women occupy the main positions of leadership, anthropologists argue that male dominance is universal.

There is a certain bias to this point of view, a bias that is understandable given the Western equation of dominance with public leadership. By defining dominance differently, one can show that in many societies male leadership is balanced by female authority. For example, among the Ashanti, Iroquois, and Dahomeans, although women were not as visible as men in external public affairs, their right to veto male actions suggests a bipartite system of checks and balances in which neither sex dominated the other. Alice Schlegel makes this point when she notes that the power of Iroquois women to make or replace political appointments, to veto warfare, and to control appropriations is "like many of the powers vested in contemporary positions of centralized authority, from the United States presidency on down to the local level!" Karen Sacks adds that to view male and female authority in societies like that of the Iroquois as unequal rather than different reflects a "state bias" in Western anthropological interpretation of prestate politics.

-Peggy Reeves Sanday, Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality

[warsofasoiaf]

Given that POTUS depends on Congress to open the purse strings can we really blame the FP establishment for not sending more aid, since Congress seems likely to spend even what Biden wants to spend now?

Yes, we can.

It's worth noting that this whole brouhaha in Congress is a relatively recent affair. There was always a small segment of MAGA idiots who wanted to simp for big daddy Putin and throw Ukraine to the wolves for political gain. There were plenty of people, especially early on in the Russo-Ukrainian War, who demanded immediate action and an aggressive stance against Russia - but these voices were sidelined out of fear of Russian escalation. There was, in fact, enough to draw a bipartisan consensus, one that could have done significant damage to the Russian Armed Forces and forced a retreat, instead that we could have coddled Russia to a gentle withdrawal and keep Russia as a "respectable" world power. This is a mentality that we should have realized, had we examined Russian geopolitical perspectives as they were, as a fantasy that needed to be ripped from the bloody root regardless of the delicate snowflake sensibilities of the Russian political elite who need to entertain the fiction that they are relevant on the world stage. After all, it's not like the Western European empires weren't able to adjust, but I guess Russia needs a special sort of babying. Tankies and terrified nationalists are terrified of their irrelevance such as they are, so they must be swaddled and given extra-special consideration regardless of how many people it hurts, I guess.

This mollycoddling of Putin was something that persisted over the Dubya and Obama administrations, and there were plenty of opportunities where we could have simply said that Russia was not worth establishing an Eastern European establishment that was confident of itself and could work towards obliterating corruption on its own.

Alas, we're paying for cowardice now, and the asymmetrical cost in open societies means that you'll always find useful idiots among the political fringes, whether that be the New Left bending over backwards to minimize Soviet atrocities, the benevolent progressive who accedes to China because they call themselves communist, or the MAGA crowd and tankies happy to bow before Putinite propaganda because of their entrenched supremacism and sour grapes. That doesn't mean we have to listen to their bad-faith arguments. Had we opened the taps earlier, and kept them open, perhaps they could have been further invalidated and things would be better off to everyone.

Alas, we are at the mercy of a political establishment whose sole and overriding priority is the desire to be re-elected that the destruction of geopolitical enemies is secondary, and an educational establishment that refuses to accept the idea that the Soviet Union collaborated with Nazi Germany to launch the Second World War because it would mean evaluating people as they are, instead of the tribes they belong to. That means even softballs like the Russo-Ukrainian War turn into partisan stupidity.

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[horizon-verizon]

https://www.tumblr.com/dutysacrifice/751843537308499968/why-dont-some-tb-stans-understand-how-the-world?source=share

"The way the world works"

Well the way the world works in our own reality isn't as progressive as that anon thinks. The idea that women should be and are their own people is here and more dominant...but what has never gone away and is actually rising in a lot of Western pockets is the idea that they should be breeding farms for hungry capitalist billionaires by "serving" every male that is interested in them without being "whorish" about it. Laws are being changed to winnow down and exterminate women's rights. Make them property, from tradcaths who go too hard in the Catholicsm. Their beloved Alicent suffers from such a system, why don't they want to dismantle such a thing if they care so much about her?

So...I don't know why they are so adamant about this when such a mindset abt something GRRM is clearly more against than the incest, dragons, etc.

This is why it's so clear that they only care abt sexism when they think it can make them morally superior, have people "owe" them, and make demands out of others to indulge their whims. It's wish fulfillment. It's white feminism. They don't want to get rid of white supremacism bc it grants them a privilege of eternal infantilization and less accountability than those they want to control as they are giving up their much of their own autonomy to men.

[papirouge]

apparently now on tiktok, arab influencers living in Europe and the us are blaming black people are being “colonizers” 🥴 saying we’re responsible for what’s happening in Gaza due to our government. There’s actual genocide and atrocities happening in Palestine Congo and Sudan, Somalia but anti blackness still finds it way to the conversation

LMAO Muslims should know they're walking on thin ice before attacking Black people. If we really wanted, we would DRAG them down in the pit of shame (lf there's one thing Black ppl can do good, is pull out a good dragging campaign. Muslims are just good to send death threat whenever they are attacked, which lacks humor entertainment and savoir faire - which we black people naturally have when it comes to drag people 😌)

The moment we clap back, they're done for. Should we remind them they ALSO colonized and enslaved Black people? That until this day they're still entertaining slavery towards Black people (I'll never forget how QUICK they got back at it after Kadhafi assassination) and that their own prophet established Black slaves had lesser value than those with white skin? BYE.

I've always acknowledged that Arabs could be very anti Black that's why I tend to roll my eyes when they talk about afro Palestinian to trigger the sympathy of the Black community towards Palestine, because it.s obvious they don't care about black people.

Here in France Black Muslim moids are doing TikTok live everyday because they seethe they can't have non Black Muslim women because Muslim moids are known negrophobe who refuse to have a Black in their family. Black Muslim married to non Black Muslim are often bullied by their wife family because they're black 💀 I laugh from afar bc I literally don't have a dog in this fight but that's why I don't have much sympathy for Black Muslims either. They entertain a religion that's explicitly discriminative of people like them yet still upkeep it and are at the forefront of defending this religion and screeching about islamophobia at any given opportunity SMH

I personally do care about Palestine on a humanity level (I don't need to remind there are people "like me" out there - though I already talked about the hypocrisy of Zionist Christians when there ARE Christian Palestinian ) but also as a Christian, I acknowledge Zionism as the synagogue of satan and therefore have the moral duty to fight it.

I've always wondered how the propaganda about Christianity being the "white man's religion" worked, when Jesus wasn't White, that you're not compelled to learn & read the bible in a White culture language, and that a handful of non white civilizations Christianity predates the conversion of Western nation.... The Bible explicitly states God doesn't discriminate based on gender, condemns the sperging on genealogy (God literally doesn't care about who you are or where you come from - As_Long_as_You_Love_Me - Backstreet_ Boys.mp3. friendly reminder that Jesus had a prostitute in his ancestry). Meanwhile Islam is literally Arab supremacism (you HAVE to read/learn Arab to properly grasp the Quran, go to the Mecca as (one of) the fulfilment of your Muslim life, etc.).

Christianity is fundamentally universalist and that's its biggest strength. There's no official Christian language or "place to go" (beside heaven lol). Another clue that's the Truth.

[chaoticflames]

Dismantling the modern: why can we love postmodernism?

I offer the most general considerations on this issue. Let us structure our analysis as follows: first, we will identify those lines of Postmodernism that are interesting from the point of view of a radical critique of Modernity isolated from postmodern morality, and then we will list those features that, on the contrary, are so imbued with this morality as to be inseparable from it.

Thus, what attracts the radical critic of Western European Modernity to Postmodernism is:

1. Phenomenology and working with the notion of intentionality (Brentano, Husserl, Meinong, Ehrenfels, Fink).

2. Structuralism and the identification of an autonomous ontology of language, text, discourse (Saussure, Trubetskoij, Jakobson, Propp, Greimas, Riker, Dumézil).

3. Cultural pluralism and interest in archaic societies (Boas, Moss, Lévi-Strauss).

4. The discovery of the sacred as the most important factor in existentialism (Durkheim, Eliade, Bataille, Caillois, Gerard, Blanchot).

5. Existentialism and the philosophy of Dasein (Heidegger and his epigones).

6. Acceptance of psychoanalytic themes as a continuous 'dream-work' that subverts the mechanisms of rationality (Freud, Jung, Lacan).

7. Deconstruction as contextualisation (Heidegger).

8. Attention to narration as myth (Bachelard, J. Durand).

9. Critique of racism, ethnocentrism and Western supremacism (Gramsci, Boas - Personality and Culture, New Anthropology).

10. Critique of the scientific image of the world (Newton) and the rationality that justifies it (mainly Cartesian-Lockian) (Foucault, Feyerabend, Latour).

11. Demonstration of the fragility, arbitrariness and falsity of the basic attitudes of Modernity (Cioran, Blaga, Latour).

12. Pessimism towards Western European civilisation, unmasking the utopian mythologies of the 'bright future' and 'progress' (Spengler, Jungers, Choran).

13. Sociology - primarily functionalism (Durkheim, Moss), which shows the illusory nature of the individual's claims to freedom from society and rational-psychological sovereignty.

14. Exposition of the nihilism of the New Age (Nietzsche, Heidegger).

15. Relativeisation of man (Nietzsche, Jünger).

16. The Discovery of Man's Interiority (Mounier, Corbin, Bataille, Jambe).

17. Political theology (Schmitt, Agamben).

— Excerpt: from ALTERNATIVE POSTMODERNISM: AN UNNAMED PHENOMENON by Alexander Dugin

[naipan]

[…] Anti-Zionism is part of a larger intellectual crack-up on the left with distant roots. There is now a kind of meeting point between simplistic post-modernism and simplistic anti-imperialism. This conjuncture can be called ‘the anti-imperialism of fools,’ a phrase that echoes the famous criticism of antisemitism on the left in the late 19th century by socialist August Bebel. When some on the left tried to blame ‘Jewish capitalists’ for Europe’s woes, he called it ‘the socialism of fools.’ Formulations of both the antisemitism of fools and anti-imperialism of fools depend on intellectual twisting and turning until somehow, no matter what, blame is ascribed to, respectively, Jews and Zionists. Ominously, that ascription is often there before the twisting and turning.

Opposition to imperialism and colonialism has always been part of any morally intelligent left-wing programs and should be. Decolonisation after World War II was of world historical importance. In many ways it culminated in Nelson Mandela’s heroic leadership of South Africa’s liberation from apartheid. But three decades later, the party he led is in miserable shape, as is South Africa as a whole, and it faces electoral decline. So, it seeks to make itself the moral leader of the ‘Global South’ and accuses Israel of genocide and apartheid but won’t condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is a species of scapegoating and has attracted great support in parts of the world including from the western left. But those supporters are reminiscent of what a New York literary critic, Harold Rosenberg, once called (referring to New York intellectuals) as a ‘herd of independent minds.’

Nobody can take a walk in Tel Aviv or Haifa and see apartheid. Using such words is a vulgar, opportunistic misapplication of political terms, corrupting their content. If you believe that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’ then you can also believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 American elections and that Hamas with its Islamist supremacism is a force of liberation even if – well, sorry about that little slip by brave ‘resisters’ – they rape Jewish women.[…]

[hazardous-waste-containment]

It sounds strange considering the track record of our few examples of fascist dictatorships in practice, including the largest genocide of the twentieth century, and it also seems effectively irrelevant today considering the apocalyptically genocidal white supremacism of the majority of contemporary Western fascism, but it was actually reasonably common in the interwar period for fascist movements to possess no particular rationale for exterminationist violence, mostly in parts of western Europe and Latin America.

We can say at least that ultra-nationalism, and even moreso the confluence of ultra-nationalism with palingenesis in a vision of nationally-purifying rebirth, predisposes fascism toward genocidal thinking without necessitating it, but obviously genocides have also occurred under liberal democracies, illiberal democracies, traditional monarchies, socialist republics, military and personal dictatorships, etc etc and I think you’d have a very difficult time concretely proving that fascist genocide is necessarily more ‘inherent’/‘built-in’, i.e. derivative of fundamental ideological tenets, than any of these other cases – that seems ultimately abstract and speculative to me, especially when, again, not all fascists are even genocidal. Liberal, socialist, reactionary etc genocides are committed specifically for liberal, socialist, reactionary etc reasons, they are fully comprehensible within the internal logics of these ideologies in the same way as is fascist genocide.

[creature-wizard]

Hi there! First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the work you do in explaining the links between New Age beliefs/Western esotericism and white supremacism. It's truly so important right now. Your blog is the first place I've seen the idea that Lilith is part of a closed practice, but it makes a lot of sense to me (as a non-Jewish person) as to why. Do you know if that extends to Lilith in astrology too, and if there's an alternative name for the aspect named for her there? I don't work with spirits at all but I do work with astrology hence my question.

Unfortunately, I don't really know here. Personally I never use asteroids and whatnot in astrology because then it's just way more complicated than I wanna deal with, lol.

Maybe some of my followers could chime in?

[jotunvali02]

I can't believe they did that!

People from the Israel governement published a French and English petition on change org to demand for the Hamas to be tried for "Crime Against Humanity"!

Like YOUR government is currently bombing whole cities, schools, hospitals and ambulances, slaughtering and hungering and ghettoizing (like fucking NAZIS) millions of people, including thousands of children, but it's the local "terrorist" group (acknowledged as such only by Western countries) that should be charged with CAH?

Can you imagine the fucking nerve??

And it's for the Hamas' so-called murder of 10 imaginary children.

Like 10 imaginary children is a CAH but a thousand actual ones is not? Oh but that's right! Palestinian children aren't actual children and Palestinian lives don't matter! Of course I had forgotten that!

And that's right! The WHOLE Palestinian population is responsible for the Hamas' exactions! Even the children! And so they should be ALL massacred and eradicated.

You know how that's called? RACISM. And you know how that's called when it's put to practice? A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!

And about 23k people signed it! Claiming the Hamas "massacres" and "kills children and elderly people"! Right. Are you sure you ain't talking about your own army, your own governement, you lying, fascist bastards?? You know, with their bombings, and their apartheid, and their supremacism, and their land-stealing, and their fucking bombings of the land they can't steal??

Your country acts like fucking NAZIS but it's your neighbors way less murderous and criminal than you that should be charged with CAH?? Even when your country is explicit in their wish to genocide a whole people??

FUCK. YOU.

(btw, I've reported that petition, hope it will remove that trash from the website)

[alwaysbewoke]

"The EU has displayed a chilling indifference to the ongoing crimes against humanity in Gaza. It has refrained from condemning, let alone halting, these crimes because they have been perpetrated against an "inferior race" by Israel, a settler-colonial extension of Europe. The current dehumanisation of Palestinians and the disinformation are liberally used to reinforce a geopolitical narrative for collective western action against the rest, a narrative that has vigorously crystallised since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Neither morality nor facticity matter to this geopolitical narrative and consensus. This post-fact European attitude is rooted in coloniality, racism and supremacism"

[rametarin]

Just a reminder. It’s Independence Day, not, “Fuck England” Day.

Just gotta emphasize a tone here (yes I know I’m coming at you AFTER midnight, so it’s July 5th, not the 4th)

My American Independence celebrates the United States as a sovereign and independent country. It only has its origins in gaining that independence from England/Britain, but there’s not any bad blood there over it.

History is history. I’m not mad at the origins, I’m happy to be alive. Totally different vibe and mood from the all-too-casual “Fuck England and the English” I see all the time from people that aren’t even the usual fare of us Americans waving flags and shooting off fireworks and yeehawing on this most festive and patriotic of days.

The ‘Muricans choosing to get extra vitriolic towards England aren’t the MAGA hatter types, they’re those ones that just barely pretend to be liberals to platform the democrats, but actually hate the liberals. The ones that on Independence Day will use it to shit talk how all white people are racist and Europe is nothing but white supremacism manifest (that’s just ‘being aboriginal to a region’ when anybody else is just living their lives)

I hope it’s understood that your average burger fryer doesn’t attribute pointless nationalistic grudges against the UK to why Independence Day is awesome. The weird wave of anglo hate here comes almost specifically from the kinds of people that see western European slavery as the only kind of slavery that actually mattered in a negative or detrimental way, and only then when it was enslavement of black or Asian people.

It’s important not to get those wires crossed. They won’t label themselves, because trying to depict themselves as The Common Consensus is their whole schtick. It’s an invisible culture within the many with borders based around arcane information and affiliation for conspiracy, where they try and rule the plurality by majority and gerrymander decisions through keeping people they don’t want to have a say, ignorant or shut out from the conversation or decision making process. That’s the schtick.

[jambeast]

Far lefties usually don’t think of Jews as obligate communists. They tend to think of Jews as hyper-white capitalist scum, especially if they’re Israeli. It doesn’t help that Westerners usually think all living Jews are of Eastern European heritage, which further fluffs the “Israel as white supremacism incarnate” boner even though the most Zionist Jews in Israel tend to be of Middle Eastern heritage

I don't think I've seen basically any of that in my experience, unless, I dunno, you mean they're, like, secretly subconsciously thinking that rather than it reflecting in what they're saying. Or maybe it's just always happened when I'm not looking.

I do think that, like, a lot of far-left viewpoints kinda resemble anti-Semitism in that they're like, the same vague shape. Like they hate *white* people for being Statistically Well Off and Overrepresented in politics/hollywood. The big Suits with who control the banks and the media colluding in smoky rooms. And if you grant that as valid reasons to hate an ethnic group then it'd make sense for them to double-hate jews, though they seem to always carve out an exception there. Or maybe they do hate people-that-happen-to-be-disproportionately-jewish, but insist they want them guillotined not because they're jewish, but because they make more than $80k a year. (I think the correct solution is to figure that maybe an ethnic group statistically being well off *isn't* a good reason to genocide them but I digress.)

I guess maybe if you use a looser definition of the term that includes, like, selecting for some other trait, but that trait disproportionately includes some group, rather than the stricter definitions that require selecting for the group in particular.

Or, like, they think that every Israeli citizen should be lined up against a wall and shot as punishment for their crimes against Palestinians, which I wouldn't call insane, murderous, genocidal, deranged anti-Semitism so much as insane, murderous, genocidal, deranged anti-Israeli-iness. Like I don't think they want to kill Jews. I think they want to kill Israelis. Which is like... it's not the same thing, but it's not much better. Don't take that as me downplaying it or saying it's, like, meaningfully any less bad. Since usually, trying to call it antisemetic is like, a way of trying to call it bad. Because it is bad. Just a slightly more specific type of bad.

[rametarin]

It is NOT a "tool of the white supremacy." From its very inception, "White people have no culture" was NOT about "white people are the norm," because it joins hand in hand with the puzzle piece, "you can't appropriate from white people, they have nothing you cannot freely use on your own, and they can gatekeep nothing from others without it being racism and prejudice against non-white people."

It ABSOLUTELY has its origins in a leftist position. This revisionism is face saving and to protect leftism from the legitimate scrutiny it deserves. It's a criticism and antagonistic position I, as a white person that was very much pushed out of left leaning spaces, saw firsthand throughout my entire life. Especially prominent in the 1980s and 90s, and how it changed in expression and rhetoric into the 00s and 10s (and now, halfway through the 20s)

The very concept of the world as a "white supremacy" is rooted in the idea capitalism is white people (Europeans and hegemony) and that white people is capitalism. And so, anti-capitalists decided to dress up anti-capitalism as anti-whiteness and say the two were synonymous. Because former colonials, developing nation peoples, have it hard. And it will still be hard for a while. And it's oh so convenient to have a scapegoat to vilify and see as the oppressor to your existence. And ideologically, for anti-capitalists, for socialists, it is oh so convenient to name ethnic oppressors, especially ones that seem richer or historically have members that mistreated that group.

Which is ironic, because under normal circumstances, socialists and communists hate ethnic groups and tribalism, but they are not beyond romancing the view these "precious" nativist xenophobes are being oppressed and stolen from and deprived a future because of some blonde haired, blue eyed rebrand of the "happy merchant" meme in Munich or England. They exploit that rhetoric broad brush and then point at white people as the source of all any domestic legal corruption or empty treasuries, gloss over their own histories of native, domestic corruption or mismanagement or incompetence, or attribute that to western malfesance. Because after all, historically they did oppress, right? It must be entirely white peoples fault.

"White supremacy" as capitalism was never a reasonable statement. It was always a bigoted position to take, it was always intended to polarize the developed world from the not with a veneer of social consciousness and history to it. Turning white supremacism from an individually held belief among those whom conspire it into a status quo, and then pointing to capitalism as the source, was ALWAYS a bad faith interpretation designed to turn whites into the enemy of non-whites and the magical source of all disparity, defining this inequity not by historical differences in culture, development and active participation and domestic organization, but the idea whites collectively don't get to be treated as a collective group, but do get to accept collective culpability and responsibility for the harm others did in the name of whiteness.

White was not created to describe, "a powerful position in western society." It was originally to distinguish a specific kind of European. Then expanded to define those of European descent, be it pure stock or mixed. No different than the way others use to determine whether they're more black African, East Asian or West/Central Asian. At its barest, it describes a broad brush European continent aboriginal, from Britain to Northern Scandinavia, to European Russia. Even if Russians claim they're somehow a phenotype all their own (they are not.)

The reason they say, "there is not a single white culture," is because no matter how you define being a person of aboriginal European descent, those married to the idea Oppressors have no validity and only the Oppressed do, marry Class Struggle Theory to race and ethnic group. Therefore, in their minds, white people only count as a people when it comes time to blame them collectively for something and demand they work and labor for restitution, but not enough to consider them as having any sort of indivisibility, sovereignty, aboriginal legal claim to Europe that would give them rights and origin over non-Europeans (the way they legally distinguish the rights of Aboriginals from any white European that migrates outside of Europe- and only Europeans don't count as a minority, specifically)

They will tell you that each tribe in Africa is a distinct group that needs recognition and to consider them their own community with needs, and ethnic living will, and thus needs their own community to separate and concentrate and perpetuate themselves from non-members, policing who counts and gets benefits from society on behalf of their population (to keep mixes with Europeans out) but do not recognize a single group like this among Europeans, not even as a whole. So a white Irish person could never truly be an ethnic member of a "minority" tribe, but a Zulu could be as Irish by migration or birth as an Irishman whose ancestors have occupied Ireland for eight centuries.

"White people have no culture," "you can't be racist to white people," "you can't appropriate white people's culture and it is never offensive or a faux pas to do so; you can't steal from them. They aren't real and are oppressors, so it's entirely fine." "White people don't exist" "White people are why you are poor."

That was nothing less than an attempt to start the fires for shit like Trotskyist Community Guilds to legally represent collective people based on their sex, gender identity, ethnic identity and what have you. A norm looking for a problem. It was a way to ascribe guilt and culpability to white people without validating whites as their own distinct group with legal rights and indivisibility. And now, the same people, the same leftists, that perpetuated that, are trying to revise "well what I actually said" or "what I really meant"

No. It was the most influential, orthodox members of this radical point of view, from the authority and position of the tenure professors and their entire chain down to the lowest Social Justice Warrior, that perpetuated this nonsense.

The same people that spent the last 15 years literally putting non-whites onto their own multitudes of platforms while denying whites a franchise or organization without declaring them to be white supremacists, separatists and bigots for doing the same shit the supposed civil rights experts were DEMANDING for non-whites in European stations or former European colonies, are now trying to act like it was just a misunderstanding by lower functionaries or radicals at the grass roots misunderstanding them, or white people misinterpreting them. There was no misinterpretation.

There was class struggle theory which said white people are The Oppressor (tm), people saying Anything Is Fair Game Against An Oppressor, people declaring racism wasn't bigotry shown to an individual on the basis of their race (favoritist and advantage or disfavoritism and violence.) There was "racism is privilege plus power", which tied to Privilege Theory, which argued whites had the most privilege.. and neglected to acknowledge privilege theory was not science, it was a biased perspective rooted in class struggle theory that arbitrarily just took for granted the idea whites are oppressors. Circular logic, subjective, based on nothing but feelings and arbitration.

Blaming misinterpretation on "the racist white power structure" and all the stupid little people that didn't get the ivory tower's real meaning and bungled it up is nonsense. It was a political theory rotten from the day it was born that ignored historical and material realities in favor of convenience that got to flatter people by saying whites, as a group, were why they suffer. An action and behavior they condemn when it comes to any other group.

"Cultural Appropriation" was whatever it needed to be, so long as it was understood that a white person was NEVER allowed to so much as touch or use tools, objects or even WORDS they could claim were born and the intellectual collective property of "oppressed peoples." So whites had no vocabulary, spaces, objects, instruments, food recipes or claims to ownership that were positive, but Cornelius Boots couldn't even play the Japanese flute without people declaring it theft and oppression for a white man to be playing an Asian cultural instrument. (Until the Japanese correctly spoke up and told the naysayers to kindly go fuck themselves, they weren't having that on their behalf, AT ALL.)

It was a hysterical go-to to declare it was never infringement on white people by saying they had no cultural borders or claim that they could tell others to stop using because, "that's not yours," but give credence and carte blanche to people to go after whites who they believed had "black" braids.

We spent the last few DECADES where this was normalized right up to the top in leftist spaces. Don't you dare try to gaslight and say that was never the status quo or what the people at the top of the tower declared was true and wanted. Don't you dare try to rebrand this as "reasonable leftist statements that became a phenomenon." The phenomenon was always doctrinal, and always just Privilege Theory. It was always rooted to the exact textbooks and those preaching from them. What we got isn't a perversion, nor bugs, they were features. And now the Progressives want to rebrand and reinterpret, because even the minorities have found these beliefs disgusting and distasteful. Trying to divorce yourself from it, or even better, reinterpret them as, "ethno-fascists" just to then reinterpret that as "right wing, by today's standards," is the inevitable next course. I've seen it happen with radical environmentalism.

This nonsense is what spurred leftists standing shoulder to shoulder with ethnosupremacist Arabs and Islamofascist Muslims, singing along to "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free... (for Arabs.)" in the name of getting the Jews out of Israel. It is the reason why behaviors they usually associate with right-wing extremists were done by the rainbow haired, drug culture freedom fighters, instead.

I will not stand by and watch spin-doctoring in the history books on whose fault this shit is.

There's a phenomenon in left-wing circles where initially reasonable statements and concepts get repeated ad nauseum until they not only lose their meaning but transform into deeply bigoted ideas.

The idea "there is no single white culture," is true because white is a concept created to describe the powerful position in Western societies. There are many different cultures, who's members are often white. But this idea became "white people have no culture" which is just not true, deeply dehumanizing, and harmful, especially to people who look white but experience marginalization because of their culture.

Another example might be cultural appropriation, which perhaps should be understood as a misrepresentation or exploitation of the cultural practices of another, especially where the person exploiting does so for personal gain, without acknowledgment. But now, people have basically transformed this into "when somebody does something from a culture they weren't raised in" or "when a particular race or ethnicity behaves in a way that's different from how they normally do" which promotes racial and cultural stereotypes and attempts to control the behaviors of people based on their race, ethnicity, and culture.