There is an ideological community that overlaps with Ethnic Europeans, fueling the theory of white supremacy as a state of nature.
White landlords enjoy a privileged position through this ideology and replicate it from generation to generation. So the capitalist hierarchy is defended by a plethora of "aspiring millionaires" who believe they can join the ranks of White Landlord.
Similar natural supremacist ideologies exist in other ethnic enclaves (Taiwanese and Indian expats have this shit particularly bad). But white people being the active governing majority get to stack the deck in their own favor.
So when you hear Leftists and other radicals talk about the problem of white people, what they're ultimately describing is a self-perpetuating ethnically homogenous block of aspiring capitalists who happen to be white. If you were in Sri Lanka or Japan or Nigeria, the ethnic composition would be different but the problems would remain the same.
So when you hear Leftists and other radicals talk about the problem of white people
Seems better to point at landlords, banks, policies, and other systemic factors, then give this context as necessary. Using "the problem of white people" as shorthand is sloppy and plays right into reactionary grievance politics.
Seems better to point at landlords, banks, policies, and other systemic factors
Sure. But they're not operating independently of a popular movement defending their behavior. The system is necessarily a product of the working people. Landlords and bankers are just the most notable beneficiaries.
Using “the problem of white people” as shorthand is sloppy and plays right into reactionary grievance politics.
Describing the ideology of "whiteness" is a necessary part of confronting it. Reactionaries have a glib response to everything, and you're just as likely going to find a Black Isrealite pouncing on you for ignoring whiteness as you are a Ben Shapiro type lampooning you for acknowledging it.
Its helpful to recognize white supremacy as an ideology, rather than a state of nature. But there's nothing to be gained by pretending it doesn't exist as a rhetorical strategy.
There is an ideological community that overlaps with Ethnic Europeans, fueling the theory of white supremacy as a state of nature.
White landlords enjoy a privileged position through this ideology and replicate it from generation to generation. So the capitalist hierarchy is defended by a plethora of "aspiring millionaires" who believe they can join the ranks of White Landlord.
Similar natural supremacist ideologies exist in other ethnic enclaves (Taiwanese and Indian expats have this shit particularly bad). But white people being the active governing majority get to stack the deck in their own favor.
So when you hear Leftists and other radicals talk about the problem of white people, what they're ultimately describing is a self-perpetuating ethnically homogenous block of aspiring capitalists who happen to be white. If you were in Sri Lanka or Japan or Nigeria, the ethnic composition would be different but the problems would remain the same.
Seems better to point at landlords, banks, policies, and other systemic factors, then give this context as necessary. Using "the problem of white people" as shorthand is sloppy and plays right into reactionary grievance politics.
Sure. But they're not operating independently of a popular movement defending their behavior. The system is necessarily a product of the working people. Landlords and bankers are just the most notable beneficiaries.
Describing the ideology of "whiteness" is a necessary part of confronting it. Reactionaries have a glib response to everything, and you're just as likely going to find a Black Isrealite pouncing on you for ignoring whiteness as you are a Ben Shapiro type lampooning you for acknowledging it.
Its helpful to recognize white supremacy as an ideology, rather than a state of nature. But there's nothing to be gained by pretending it doesn't exist as a rhetorical strategy.