Charlie Stross is not anti-white – unsurprisingly, since he’s white by most standards[1] - and his actual statement is different from yours in a very telling way: he opposes white supremacy, as you’d expect both because he’s generally decent but also because he’s a Scot of Jewish descent whose family tree was brutalized by an earlier batch of white supremacists.
If opposition to white supremacy makes you uncomfortable that’s a great time to reconsider who you identify as peers and whether that’s really the side you want to be on.
That's not really a gotcha or a surprise to anyone, most people preaching anti-white rhetoric are white.
Do you remember all those times politicians introduced laws to ban encryption in order "to fight pedophiles"? If opposition to pedophilia makes you uncomfortable ... and so on and so on.
As should have been made obvious by my second statement, it's quite common for people and organizations to use labels that are difficult to argue against in order to shield behaviours or beliefs that are otherwise reprehensible .
Some examples:
Governments trying to forbid consumer encryption and labeling their laws as "anti-pedophile".
People promoting racist ideas and calling themselves anti-racist.
People opposing white-supremacy while arguing all white people are innately racist and perpetuate white-supremacy.
> It's looking since the US midterms like the new hotness in western hard right circles is going to be the war on youth. Young people (especially women and people of colour) overwhelmingly reject white male supremacism, for fairly obvious reasons: they're also more inclined to be worried about climate change. An immediate response by authoritarians is to push back against any resistance. In the USA, Republicans propose raising the voting age to 21 or even 28; in the UK, New voter ID laws discriminate against young people (old peoples' bus passes are acceptable at polling stations, but young persons' railcards are not), and in Iran we're seeing a striking display of inter-generational violence, as the ageing male authoritarian fundamentalists of the post-1979 revolution shoot young female demonstrators in the streets.
> Some years ago, when asked, SF author Bruce Sterling summed up the 21st century as "old people, living in cities, afraid of the sky". Well, Earth's human population is over 50% urban at this point, the sky is becoming bloody dangerous (climate!), and as for the old people ... the young are trying to adapt, the gerontocracy are pushing back, but eventually the current gerontocrats will die out.
Above is setting up a false dichotomy between Republican/old/white/male and Democrat/female/colour/etc (US version).
If you're voting a certain way you're rejecting white male supremacism. But, both parties are dominated by old white folks to a great extent, so, a vote either direction furthers the existing hegemony which is the Establishment Uniparty.
In recent times, the Uniparty has been weaponized against non-Uniparty of both Dissident/Populist Left & Right.
> they're voting against fascism
What a fraud! We're seeing ever closer ties between Uniparty/TheState and BigTech, and saying something like fascism is actually a cover for voting you don't like, or a non-existent enemy. But, the merger of UniParty and BigTech is alive and well, as BigTech works as the Official Censor of Record for Govt.
> It's looking since the US midterms like the new hotness in western hard right circles is going to be the war on youth. Young people (especially women and people of colour) overwhelmingly reject white male supremacism
If anything, the trending is going in the opposite direction.
The thing is anyone can claim the views one does not like are the product of a propaganda machine working for the elites. The thing is the elites do exist and do have imho too much power, the one granted by big money when not kept in check by counter powers
But truth is there are diverging views within the elites on what society should look like (except for the maintaining of the the economical system that put them in power) and they are ready to harness that power in order to make their views matter. On the side, ordinary people, (not millionaires that is) do also have views on what society should look like and when in number also try to make their views count.
Now, tell me, who are the most likely to be defending their own interests rather than being manipulated ? People blindly following a billionaire that tells them everyone but him is corrupt and that the enemy is going to eat their babies or people demonstrating in the streets for the right to exist without being killed, violented or in order to have a wage they can live with ?
Let me know when the next US election isn't between a billionaire and a multimillionaire.
