Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

Yep; the other irony was that his prosecutor was O. John Rogge, one of the great liberal crusading attorneys of the day, who insisted on bringin charges in order to drag militant racism into the light of day. So Dennis, spurred by his hatred for American racism, made common cause with thuggish men who would have happily hanged him from a tree, and as a result was prosecuted by a man who otherwise would have been his natural political and moral ally. A complex man, Lawrence Dennis. (There is one biography available, The Color of Fascism, which is a little too clunky to be authoritative, but which is well worth reading. An equally unusual journey is that of Bayard Rustin, an openly gay African American civil rights activist who studied under Gandhi, introduced MLK to the theory of nonviolent activism, and ended up part of the neoconservative movement in the Reagan administration.)

> the form of my argument is that a policy can be implicitly racist without being explicitly racist.

An explicit policy like officially-segregated schools is objectively racist. "Implicitly racist" is completely subjective.

The Atwater quote kind of makes the point. Is lowering taxes a racist policy? Nothing about the policy is different just because you can find some racist who supports it specifically because they know it will have a disparate impact. So you are implying that any policy with a disparate impact is "implicitly" racist, because a racist might support it for only that reason.

But that makes the definition of "racist" so broad that it loses all meaning. It makes the law against marijuana racist but also the law against speeding and the law against felons possessing a handgun.

> "Implicitly racist" is completely subjective.

"Implicitly racist" is far from being completely subjective. A law banning US citizens whose ancestors lived in Africa 500 years ago from voting isn't explicitly racist: one could argue that it's based purely on geography and that ancestry and geography are only incidentally linked. It's implicitly racist given an understanding of the context in which it is applied.

Taken out of context, the War on Drugs can presented as race-neutral. You can describe the laws as they are written and stop there. This is not an honest discussion of the War on Drugs. We're not just talking about laws, we're talking about enforcement. Look at the data. Look at the statistics. I'm not just saying that.

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsP... 2013 Drug usage rates, by race

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/... 2014 Drug abuse violation rates, by race

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/... 2014 Drug abuse violations, by category

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf 2010 US Census, by race

This tells me that the ratio of Whites to Blacks in the U.S. is roughly ~6:1. The ratio of drug use between Whites and Blacks is ~1:1. The ratio of drug abuse violations between Whites and Blacks is ~2:1. Do you agree that these figures are correct? If so, how do you explain the discrepancy between usage vs violations between Whites and Blacks? Looking for an honest analysis. My conclusion was that the laws and policies which constitute the War on Drugs have disproportionately affected Blacks. CMV.

I wonder if there is any real limit to what positions such a person would take. In every company I've ever worked for there's several examples of this sort of person and ... I don't think I've ever even seen one with their own political opinion. Personal advancement, or the potential for it, determines their position in any argument, including political ones.

These days that usually makes them argue for "diversity" (taken to corporate insanity extremes, like every other position).

I would agree with the article that given the environment in the 1930's that would probably have made them nazis. But this has nothing to do with the content of these ideologies, only with their relative success.

But what I find myself at very strong odds with is the smart person who clawed his way up and finds himself beneath a glass ceiling, Mr. C. They usually have a relatively insane political opinion that indeed originates from some past humiliation. But that nearly always makes them some sort of extremist socialist or outright marxist if they were poor in their childhood, or extreme laissez-faire when not. And frankly, what is wrong with holding such an opinion due to having had to endure serious hardship or humiliation as a result (having been the rich kid in a poor school or a poor kid in a rich school would pretty much guarantee such a position, no ?). I would imagine that if indeed such a person became a nazi, one confrontation with a nazi "type D" would cure him of such an affliction, as he'd immediately recognize the ideology for what it is. Either such guys are nihilists or they have some insane party affiliation.

Given the thousands of political parties in the Weimar republic, I'd be much less surprised to find this Mr. C an avid supporter of one of the many "20 party members and only their mothers vote for them" ideologies that the Weimar republic boasted.

This is not very smart political thinking, but great for making an entertaining argument on the Internet. Other than ISIS, none of the movements you listed could be considered revolutionary in terms of actually changing forms of government.

1. Occupy Wall Street was about the financial crisis in '08. People were angry that the banks got bailed out and everyone else just got (arguably) left out. It went away when the economy finally improved, though there is still enough anger to fuel at least one Presidential campaign.

2. Feminism is about equal jobs and rights for women (including in politics). While I'm sure some of the men had ulterior motives, alot more of them probably just listened to what the women were actually saying and realized that they had a point. Why should half the population be treated worse than the other half? All of your other complaints about a "pro-victim" academic curriculum, or whatever you're trying to say here, are just nonsense. Academics have always been weird. The politics behind universities are also weird, but ultimately small stakes and hardly "revolutionary". People don't face down the police and the army because their college doesn't have the right sort of Women's studies program.

3. BLM is about one segment of the population being prosecuted, hurt, and killed by police more than any other group of people. "Stop shooting us" is a powerful message, especially when it's backed up by numbers and video, but it's not revolutionary. I would also add that the problem has been made worse by the Drug war and the prison-industrial complex so what's surprising is that it hasn't happened sooner and with more people backing it.

4. Trump just wants to be President. His supporters are basically the anti-Occupy Wall Street crowd. They're angry about job prospects (especially since 2008), but they blame immigrants and Democrats (+ NAFTA, GATT, etc.) rather than rich bankers. It's not something we've seen at this level since the 1900s or earlier, but it's not new and they don't really seem to want to change anything politically with the way government works.

TL;DR: your thesis doesn't seem to hold up once you examine why each movement exists and what it's trying to do. Other than ISIS, but basically they're just Saddam Hussein's old posse with some new faces.