Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

High Command, we've gone back and forth on this before, I'm not reigniting that fire. I only want to show you what your future is.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/wisconsin-daniel-navarro-motorcycle-hate-crime

Story is from a couple days ago, you can read it if you choose, but if not I can summarize it for you. Driver was going down the road when he saw a motorcycle coming. He identified it as a harley davidson and purposfully swerved into a head-on collision. The motorcycle was destroyed, the driver was dead on the scene. When he was arrested, he was completely unashamed of his actions. He told the police that in his area only white racists(Read, white supremacists or nazis, take your pick) ride harleys and so he took action and killed him. And he was quite successful in it.

See, this right here is why you don't throw around the idea that "We should just do X to nazis" because now you have people doing just that. Doesn't actually matter who it is, if you think they're a nazi just murder the **** in cold blood. There is no evidence that he was a nazi. The driver, after the identified him was a retired soldier and officer, nothing about him being a nazi. But I guess the accusation is enough.

I'll tell you this though. If this is the game we're going to play, communists are responsible for millions more dead than the fascists of the world. And you, you're anti-fascist, right? You could be considered antifa. And antifa are certain a communist group, have been ever since their organization back in eastern europe. Well, seeing as we know what happens when communists get into power, maybe we should be punching communists as well. At a start.

It'd be a real shame if someone were to accuse you of being a communist and beat you to death with bats and crowbars, even though that's more or less the standard we have now. It started with Nazis are bad. They are bad. Then it moved to Nazis should be punched. You said it yourself. Now we're up to Nazis should be killed. And who gets to determine that? Unless you're going to pull your punches for the guys in actual uniforms, apparently it's this guy who saw a motorcycle and said "NAZI" and murdered him on the spot.

I'll tell you what the next move will be. One side, the communists under the banner of fighting the oppressive system or the actual **** nazis looking for revenge are going to find a place, a building, a protest, any gathering of "bad people" and they're going to massacre the entire **** lot of them. And I'm going to hold you personally accountable when that happens. You justfied the violence, you said it was necessary, and I'll be sure to remind you of that when the time comes whether it's an actual nazi compound, or a biker rally that someone called nazis, or a BLM protest that somene called communists, or an antifa black block that are actual communists. You asked for this.

"First, those who identify themselves as "Nazi" do so in order to "trigger" oversensitive people. The ones who are genuine are rare like a needle in a haystack. Almost like mythical creatures."

Christchurch, El Paso, Tree of Life, Louisville Kroger, Quebec Islamist Cultural Center, Mother Emanuel, the list goes on. I don't know how many self-identified as Nazis versus "regular" white supremacists, but they all have the ideology of racial hatred. They're not unicorns. For every one of them, I'm confident there are dozens more being radicalized on the forums for hatemongers, working up the nerve to act out.

There are no ironic Nazis, and there are no ironic Nazi defenders. Allying with white supremacists is evil.

There's no value in debating people like this, their words offer no insight, they are not responsive to a genuine effort to find moral common ground. This has crossed the line well past political debate and become a defense of the indefensible. I hope someday they recognize this and change.

AcademyofDrX wrote:"First, those who identify themselves as "Nazi" do so in order to "trigger" oversensitive people. The ones who are genuine are rare like a needle in a haystack. Almost like mythical creatures."

Christchurch, El Paso, Tree of Life, Louisville Kroger, Quebec Islamist Cultural Center, Mother Emanuel, the list goes on. I don't know how many self-identified as Nazis versus "regular" white supremacists, but they all have the ideology of racial hatred. They're not unicorns. For every one of them, I'm confident there are dozens more being radicalized on the forums for hatemongers, working up the nerve to act out.

There are no ironic Nazis, and there are no ironic Nazi defenders. Allying with white supremacists is evil.

There's no value in debating people like this, their words offer no insight, they are not responsive to a genuine effort to find moral common ground. This has crossed the line well past political debate and become a defense of the indefensible. I hope someday they recognize this and change.

I think you're absolutely right, which is why I think save for some people in this conversation there's a misunderstanding in the discussion.

The nazis and white supremicists(As far as I'm concerned they're the same, so I'm not typing that out every time) are breeding like crazy. The more violent and insane the country gets the more people are running to them. One of the things that is NOT helping right now is this "Punch a Nazi" bullshit. Look, I get it. I'm not on board for punching nazis, I'm up for shooting them. But this is NOT world war II, they are NOT wearing uniforms, and if we're going to go around accusing people and then exacting vigilante justice on the spot that's only going to make it worse.

You spot someone with a particular haircut and decide on the spot they're a nazi and murder them. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Whether you're right or wrong I'll tell you this much: Their family, their friends, if they weren't siding with the nazis before they sure as hell are now because one side is threatening their lives and they're going to flee to the OTHER side before someone comes for them next out of some myopic sense of guilt by association. That's the real danger here. Innocent people being attacked, innocent people being terrorized, and innocent people being radicalized out of fear and self preservation.

That can be stopped. We can stop that. But I get the feeling that some of us don't want to. They'd rather go out like the Punisher or Dredd, acting as judge, jury, and executioner because they know what's right, they know what's wrong, and they are the sole arbiter of the consequences. That'll be great until the other side gets the same idea and it's not the lone wolf psychopaths shooting up churches and businesses but instead death squads targetting protests and demonstrations.

But then, it might be too late to stop that. Maybe I'm having delusions of optimism.

AcademyofDrX wrote:Christchurch, El Paso, Tree of Life, Louisville Kroger, Quebec Islamist Cultural Center, Mother Emanuel, the list goes on. I don't know how many self-identified as Nazis versus "regular" white supremacists, but they all have the ideology of racial hatred. They're not unicorns. For every one of them, I'm confident there are dozens more being radicalized on the forums for hatemongers, working up the nerve to act out

Those were loner lunatics who were already crazy in their head.

Now please point me to a Nazi march with people brandishing flags and signs, burning buildings, beating people up or even MURDERING people.

Oh right. You can't.

Because it's the BLM/Antifa people that are now the modern and genuine Nazi.
THEY ADVOCATE FOR SEGREGATION AND RACE PURITY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED?

You, Highcommand, and other "leftists" are Don Quichottes chasing after the windmills that are "the Nazi". All while beating people up, burning down properties, making death threats, burning books, and shouting racial slurs. You may not wear the Nazi Swastika, but (you?) and too many "leftists" are the new Fascists.

Only death and destruction await if you keep walking that path.

ShadowKatt wrote:I'm not on board for punching nazis, I'm up for shooting them.

O ghost of Christmas yet to come, I'm confused now. You're telling me one minute that advocating for punching may as well be the same as calling for death squads, while the two are obviously not the same, yet you come out with this.

If we agree that debating with nazis is pointless then what precisely should one do? I am on the side of antifa, being set up precisely as a counter-protest movement with the primary purpose to not let neo-nazi and other white supremacist groups march unchallenged. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more.'

High Command wrote:If we agree that debating with nazis is pointless then what precisely should one do?

I'm so glad you asked. As it turns out, after reviewing the entire library of congress in my spare time and traversing the cosmos to consult with God himself, I have an answer for you: Nothing.

Look, you want to speak out, speak out. You want to protest, protest. You want to demonstrate, demonstrate. We are a nation of LAWS though. If the nazis out there are as bad as you say they are, they just wait for them to break and law and go for it like Cujo. You find a group of nazis beating on a crowd of jews, shoot them all. I'm all on board. If you see someone walking down the street in a nazi uniform, harming ABSOLUTELY no one, as it turns out, they have the freedom to do that. And if you're going to run over and punch them or shoot them, then I hope you won't be offended when I put a whole magazine in you.

We have LAWS that we all abide by. Assault is illegal. Murder is illegal. Discrimination is illegal, in the professional space at least. We even have hate crimes laws, as stupid as they are, just to tack on more punishment for shits and giggles. If you want to insist that nazis must be punched, if you insist that the laws do not apply to you and you're going to do it, I hate to break this to you but that makes YOU the criminal. You do not get to go out and assign guilt as you please. You do not get to go out and punish someones beliefs, someones expression, or someones politics as you please. And I have a warning for you: If this is the world you want to live in it will come out to bite you because these are the rules that I abide by. And if you are so intent on walking up to anyone that resmebles your nazis and attack them on sight, I'll make sure to put you down first.

Alternately, I suppose we could explore the idea of proactive actions. Maybe you feel the need to go kill all the nazis because if you don't then they'll just start murdering people. Maybe you feel like the only way to drive them all out is to make them all too afraid to show their faces. If that's the case, then I was wrong to call you a criminal. That makes you a terrorist. A terrorist so consumed by their own sense of self righteousness and moral superiority that the conventions of modern society are below them. If that's how you feel, that's fine, just admit it. You'll be in good company, right with all the other people in that list DX left of other people so convinced in their own morals that they took to action without a single thought to the rest of society.

You know, after all the conversations we've had, the back and forth, I want to like you. I really do. But if this is your worldview, and please, PLEASE correct me if it's not, then I'm sorry, you are a monster and a menace.

High Command wrote:
I am on the side of antifa, being set up precisely as a counter-protest movement with the primary purpose to not let neo-nazi and other white supremacist groups march unchallenged. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more.'

You really are one hell of a psycho and the FBI should put you on their watch list.
After all ANIFA have done, including killing a 8 year old child in a car and a young mother that dared say "all lives matter", there's no redemption for you.

I do hope you're just a "keyboard warrior" because if you act on what you advocate, may God have mercy on your soul.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:
I am on the side of antifa, being set up precisely as a counter-protest movement with the primary purpose to not let neo-nazi and other white supremacist groups march unchallenged. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more.'

You really are one hell of a psycho and the FBI should put you on their watch list.
After all ANIFA have done, including killing a 8 year old child in a car and a young mother that dared say "all lives matter", there's no redemption for you.

I do hope you're just a "keyboard warrior" because if you act on what you advocate, may God have mercy on your soul.

Dude, how is that helpful right now?

ShadowKatt wrote:Dude, how is that helpful right now?

I know it's not. At all. A cultist zealot will never change his mind.
But after all ANTIFA have done, all the murders, destruction, and carnage, how the hell can someone still claim to be "on the side of ANTIFA" as if it's perfectly normal?

It's as if to say you're on the side of the Talibans as the dust on the 9/11 site was still not settled.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

ShadowKatt wrote:Dude, how is that helpful right now?

I know it's not. At all. A cultist zealot will never change his mind.
But after all ANTIFA have done, all the murders, destruction, and carnage, how the hell can someone still claim to be "on the side of ANTIFA" as if it's perfectly normal?

It's as if to say you're on the side of the Talibans as the dust on the 9/11 site was still not settled.

You know, you're right, and I'm glad you said that because that is perfect right now. You're right, Antifa are terrorists. Literally, by definition. I don't care what lofty goals they have. Hitler was trying to make a better world for his country and people, something about fourteen words and a book. Schindler was a nazi who saved a buttload of jews. Ideology itself doesn't make you guilty, action does. I have no evidence that HC has beaten anyone, has burned anything, has broken anything, or done anything illegal. BEING antifa is not a crime. BEING a nazi isn't a crime. Burning a car IS a crime. Murdering a jew IS a crime. See what i'm getting at here?

This is what I have been constantly trying to hammer into this conversation. You do not go around exacting your own justice on people that have done nothing. Until they have, sure, far as i'm concerned they forfeited their right to existing in this mortal plane. But you do not act just because you think someone is bad. You wait until they do something actually punishable. And if they don't? Then bad day for you, you don't get to live out your fantasy as the sole arbiter of Megacity 1(It is megacity 1, right? I haven't actually see dredd).

If Antifa could go ANYWHERE without burning something down I might have a different opinion. HOwever, Antifa has left a wake like that of an F5 through Wichita, and I would do the same to them as I would do any nazi I found burning down a synagouge. But until actions have been taken, They. Are. Innocent.

Quick edit: And yes, that means that Nazis can be innocent too, until the minute they break the non agression principle. If you can't stomach that, then you are the problem. You do not believe in freedom of belief. You do not believe in freedom of expression. You ARE the fascist.

-Kanrabat- wrote:You really are one hell of a psycho and the FBI should put you on their watch list.

You know, I've shown a **** **** load of leniency in this thread, but comments like this, which go directly against the rules, will NOT be tolerated.

YOU do not talk to another member of these forums like that. This is your last chance, you EVER attack a member like that one these forums again and you are gone permanently.

ShadowKatt wrote: Hitler was trying to make a better world for his country and people...BEING a nazi isn't a crime... that means that Nazis can be innocent too, until the minute they break the non agression principle.

Okay, that's a very, very fine line. If a person labels him-/herself a Nazi anytime after May 1945, that person is showing belief in and support for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, and just the approval of mass murder and destruction caused by them makes ANYONE in support of it a scumbag. Until all of their horrific actions came to light, it might have been possible for a person to claim to be a Nazi and be a decent person. After all, the Nazi party came to power on the suffering of the German people due to the oppression caused by Germany's acceptance of the terms of unconditional surrender at the end of World War 1. Like you said, Hitler claimed to have wanted to make life better for Germans. That's why he rose to power as swiftly and totally as he did. But then he stepped over the line, in a big way. So if today someone claims to support Nazis, that person cannot claim ignorance of how horrible they were, because of all we know about them. I understand that history is written by the winners and some things can be somewhat skewed in order to make those writing it look more favorable. But if BEING a Nazi is not a crime, it's still a damn shameful stance to take.

I think I understand what you're trying to say. If 1 label becomes criminal (in this case being a Nazi) then it's a slippery slope to George Orwell's 1984, where any dissenting thought is punishable. It's a slope the US is at the precipice of, and if extremist views and those espousing them are allowed to gain control in government without measures to limit them, then we'll be sliding all the way down in a big hurry. It's already happening, but it won't become impossible to reverse until this November, depending on how things turn out. Because even if politicians of both major parties are bought and paid for (and I believe they are, on all levels) what they publicly claim to represent still has the power to steer their followers in a certain direction. Now, if I have misunderstood your point, my mistake. I'm trying to filter it through my view on things, and this is what I came up with.

ShadowKatt wrote:Antifa are terrorists. Literally, by definition. I don't care what lofty goals they have. Hitler was trying to make a better world for his country and people,

A cautionary tale in quotes taken out of context.

Anyway my real reason for quoting you there is to provide this actual, literal definition of antifa by way of context.

merriam-webster wrote:antifa noun
1: a person or group actively opposing fascism
2: an anti-fascist movement

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antifa


Donald Trump's tweets are not definitions.

Incidentally you say that being a nazi isn't against the law. Well in some places, such as the UK it is. Neo-Nazi group National Action is an illegal group here.
Here's an article from only a few days ago about a police officer being prosecuted after being found to be a member:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rror-group

Rodimus Prime wrote:If a person labels him-/herself a Nazi anytime after May 1945, that person is showing belief in and support for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, and just the approval of mass murder and destruction caused by them makes ANYONE in support of it a scumbag...But if BEING a Nazi is not a crime, it's still a damn shameful stance to take...I think I understand what you're trying to say. If 1 label becomes criminal (in this case being a Nazi) then it's a slippery slope to George Orwell's 1984, where any dissenting thought is punishable. It's a slope the US is at the precipice of, and if extremist views and those espousing them are allowed to gain control in government without measures to limit them, then we'll be sliding all the way down in a big hurry.

You nailed it right on the head, thank you. I never once said that the nazis were in any way decent people. Arguing that they're even people is debatable. Nazis(And neo-nazis...what the hell are they neo-nazis? They're just nazis) will never be good people. But it is not illegal to be a bad person. It's not illegal to be an asshole. It's not illegal to be stupid either, which is probably where a lot of our problems stem from. Which brings me to my next point.

High Command wrote:

merriam-webster quote wrote:

I'm getting really tired of you hiding behind that definition as if someone writing that in the dictionary has magicly excused all of antifas actions. It's kinda like the christians preaching love and salvation while they stone people to death for the sin of homosexuality

Also Merriam-Webster wrote:ter·​ror·​ism | \ ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of terrorism
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

When Antifa goes out and uses violence to shut down entire city blocks, that is terrorism. When Antifa goes out and beats people, that is terrorism. When Antifa riots, loots, and vandalizes, that is TERRORISM. That is a message that they will do what they are going to do and violence to anyone that gets in their way until they get their way. That is terror. Being used to threaten and coerce the population. It is the literal god damn definition. And it's also criminal, which is a good segway to my next point.

High Command wrote:Incidentally you say that being a nazi isn't against the law. Well in some places, such as the UK it is. Neo-Nazi group National Action is an illegal group here.
Here's an article from only a few days ago about a police officer being prosecuted after being found to be a member:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rror-group

I'll give you this one, because I have been less than precise with my language. Of course, I have been speaking from an American lens which, while I'm sure it was obvious and didn't need to be stated, was still rather myopic and I could have done a better job. That being said...

Homosexuality is a crime in almost every middle easter nation. Punishible by death.
Consuming Beef is illegal in India. Punishment varies but on average it is 7 years and 10000 rupees
Critizing the government in China is illegal. The punishment is a **** mystery since we never see anyone come back.

So you're right, there are places where it is illegal to be a self avowed nazi. Of course, that might be why they keep using all those different names, because one of them is illegal but the rest aren't and so you have to keep making one group after another after another illegal trying to criminalize **** THOUGHT. Then again, perhaps you could be more proactive and just find all the people that have similar thoughts. Afterall, we can't let them live and roam free, god knows what sinister plots they may be hatching and what danger lurks behind those eyes. Maybe round them all up on a train and send them to a camp somewhere where they can't bother anyone ever again. If you cannot grasp the implications here and the potential for abuse on scales we haven't seen since the soviet union(Or China, on a good day), then maybe I wasn't the only one being myopic.

And one thing to consider, since it did happen before. When Hitler rose to power and began his extermination it wasn't just jews. It primarily was, by a large margin, but it was still only half of the people exterminated. The other half was made up of smaller groups. Blacks, homosexuals, as well as POLITICAL DISSIDENTS AND COMMUNISTS among others. Since you seem so comfortable with the idea of looking for nazis so you can lay down your justice, you are tempting the other side to do the same. But I know, I know, I'm sure you're just saying "But they struck first! This isn't the first punch, this is for everything those people did during WWII!" So Nazis are guilty for being Nazis. I guess that means that because of the crusades the christians are all guilty for being christians. And because of the Jihads the muslims are guilty for being muslims. And hell while we're at it I suppose that because of slavery and colonialization white people are guilty just for being white. And because of slavery and ethnic cleansing black people are guilty just for being black. And on and on and on and on, do you get the freakin point? If you're going to to start punishing people for being WHO THEY ARE them you may as well start your own death camps and get your own armbands. Actually I'm not too far off because some Antifa already have armbands, I guess they're just shopping around for the best deal on land.

I stepped out of line and let my anger cloud my judgment. For this, I apologize.

My only wish is for people to denounce loudly and clearly all violence made in the name of their side. Violence is unjustifiable no matter the cause.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Violence is unjustifiable no matter the cause.

This might be the only time I actually agree with HC against you, because I'm pretty sure that both of us believe that violence IS justifiable. The only difference is that HC seems to believe in violence without provocation, while I believe in violence only in response to violence.

ShadowKatt wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Violence is unjustifiable no matter the cause.

This might be the only time I actually agree with HC against you, because I'm pretty sure that both of us believe that violence IS justifiable. The only difference is that HC seems to believe in violence without provocation, while I believe in violence only in response to violence.

Well, granted if you are attacked with violence, survival will take priority.

Recently, tension have become so high, that guns are pulled out when they wouldn't be in normal circumstances. And some people will shoot first if they feel their lives are in danger.

We are in dangerous tines.

ShadowKatt wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Violence is unjustifiable no matter the cause.

This might be the only time I actually agree with HC against you, because I'm pretty sure that both of us believe that violence IS justifiable. The only difference is that HC seems to believe in violence without provocation, while I believe in violence only in response to violence.

I think we also have a difference in perspective based on US/UK differences on how commonplace casual violence is. I am against the sort of everyday stuff where you can get punched for spilling someone's pint of beer, wearing the wrong colour shirt when a football match is on or being an ambulance driver looking after someone who's drunk. Yeah that's right the UK has to have semi-regular safety campaigns asking drunk people to not punch ambulance drivers. Maybe that puts into perspective what I've been saying a little more and I think it's quite likely I see punching someone as a lot less severe than you do. Maybe a semantics difference as to what constitutes provocation also. I say a far right march is provocation enough, I think you set it further down the line by who throws the first punch. I never said attack randos in the street.

Let me also be clear when I say nazi, I am being very precise about who I am talking about. I don't need a lecture on who the nazis put into camps and murdered. Pretty much my entire circle of family and friends would have been their victims for one reason or another. My best friend alone for two reasons, being disabled and homosexual.

This parody sketch illustrate the current situation so well.

Again with the anti-racism people are the real racists argument?
We've had that one along with anti-fascists are the real fascists.

Can we at least have a new and exciting one like skint people are the real billionaires or cats are the real dogs?

High Command wrote:Again with the anti-racism people are the real racists argument?
We've had that one along with anti-fascists are the real fascists.

Can we at least have a new and exciting one like skint people are the real billionaires or cats are the real dogs?

You don't get it at all aren't you?
There is no "fake" or "true" racism. There's only ONE racism. And it's racism. The point of the sketch is just to shove a mirror in the face of those who claim to be "anti-racist" when in fact, they are as racist, white supremacists as the most disgusting KKK type.

BOTH have the same racism. But strangely, only the KKK type is self-aware.

One day, someone with "high virtue" and "good intentions" will pull a very disgustingly racist move against you or one of your close friend. Maybe then you'll finally realise something and say "Wait... Hold on."

Now, I want you to take a minute and look at what the National Museum of African American History & Culture published without shame. It was removed after a few days due to an understandable backlash from EVERYONE. Left and Right. But the Internet never forget:

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/12 ... 3730203651

Now please tell me. Was that pamphlet racist or not?

The difference is intent and likelihood of changing one's mind.

To take a single example for the video you posted:
White voice actors voicing non-white characters in cartoons.

I'm sure most anti-racist people's initial reaction would be that ending that practice is a good thing for the same reason we don't approve of white actors wearing blackface. The intent being first to not offend minorities and second to employ more non-white actors.
However it is a broader topic than a simple answer allows for. Has anyone been offended by a pre-existing character? Has anyone asked for the character to be removed or recast? How long has that character been established? If a new character were being introduced now would they make the same casting choice? What does the voice actor in question say? Does voicing that character make them uncomfortable now? If the character is removed will there still be any minority representation?
Opinion may differ as to what to do but the intent is to find a less racist approach.
I would argue that someone who wants to oppose racism, may form an opinion on a subject such as this which others take the opposite view on yet have the same end goal in mind. If two people want to cross a river they may debate on the best way to acheive this and maybe not all methods are the best approach. Taking a run up and trying to jump across but what if it is too wide? Perhaps wading across but perhaps it is too deep? How about swimming but perhaps the current is too fast? None of these people oppose crossing the river however.
I expect you to counter that I'm wrong in saying at the start that people will change their minds. Sadly a lot of people on any side find it difficult to be swayed from an opinion on someone once it has been formed. However I see the difference being between what the opinion has been formed on which is why I say anti-racist people are more likely to change their opinion. The difference being between the opinion being about the end goal vs the methodology used to acheive it. A person being shown that their approach to reaching their goal is wrong is more likely to change it than someone being told that their goal is wrong.

As for the pamphlet you linked to, I don't see it as being overtly racist on first inspection but I hypothesise that objections were raised particularly towards the section describing protestant work ethics. I expect their intent was to highlight the idea the notion that in America people who are well off, deserve their wealth because they have worked hard for it and everyone else should work harder if they want the same. This concept ignoring inherited wealth, family connections, place one grew up in etc. The pamphlet's choice of wording however is poor and seems to imply that non-white culture doesn't value hard work, which I don't think was intended. I am mindful too that this is specifically about American white culture since a lot of it doesn't apply to Europe and elsewhere as much. To me it reads more as a critique of American capitalist culture and saying that though normalised, is not the only way to live one's life.
Still this is a rather outdated example as it is marked ©1990 at the end of it. I don't see how this 30 year old pamphlet being much in favour of white power despite being poorly worded.

I have absolutely no idea where that ©1990 come from because it a new thing that was just released. I bet the @ is for the stock pictures because in 1990, such ludicrous ideas didn't really existed.

You are also perfectly right in pointing out that the pamflet is just about AMERICAN culture. This shows that for them, WHITE Culture ≠ American culture. As if people of any other races in America are NOT American. That is pretty disgusting. It's literal white supremacy at its finest.

I'll stress the point that I don't particularly care to defend what I've already described as poorly worded.

However I read it as describing aspects of American culture that it describes as having a white origin and being normalised. I don't see it saying that these things being normalised in society (regardless of race) is a good thing or that they are immutable. Rather I think it advocates for the opposite of what you say there. It is hihlighting the status quo with a view to changing it or at the very least making people think about it.
Is a nuclear family really better than a more extended one with grandparents, aunts and uncles etc playing a bigger role? Does one have to be Christian to have American values? Is working harder now at the expense of family and social life the only correct way?
My reading of it is it calling for these other marginalised ideas to become normalised rather than be thrown out.

High Command wrote:As for the pamphlet you linked to, I don't see it as being overtly racist on first inspection but I hypothesise that objections were raised particularly towards the section describing protestant work ethics.

I believe it's the context. That poster has been hanging since the 90's in the Smithsonian African-American History Mueseum. Right off the bat it begs the question of why is it there, what's the relevance, how is this supposed to contribute to a mueseum about black history in america? By drawing out all those observations and conclusions it really just serves to divide aspects of the culture, "THIS is white, therefore if you're not doing this then you're not a part of white culture". Which is stupid on its face. The ideals of hard work and social stability are not racial, they're just common sense. Work hard, take care of each other, take care of yourself. That's not racial, that's just being a civilized human.

That aside, I believe that it became racist when large swaths of the population began to promote the idea that White = Bad. White = Racist. White = Supremecist. And then someone found that hanging in the Smithsonian. Immediately, their first thought was "If white is bad, and everything on this list is 'white', then everything on this list must be bad" even though that list without the white qualifier is just the basis for any stable society. Thus now you had a rallying flag, on one side all the racists against whites saying "Here's the list of everything NOT to do so we won't be like those evil white people" and the racists on the other side saying "Here's the list of everything they're trying to tear down to destroy our society" when the reality of it is that some **** moron put that poster up back in the 90s because they had the self awareness of a cone snail and it's hung there until now when it could be the perfect kindling to start a whole new fire.

The only problem I see now is that people NOW with the self awareness of a cone snail are actually buying into those arguements, with some people ACTUALLY using that as a blueprint of everything NOT to do which will be self destructive at best, massively destructive at worst if they try to destroy those pillars of society because they're supposedly "Racist".

The whole thing is **** stupid.