This is actually a really damning article. Despite the carefully constructed facade, Scott simply isn’t curious about anything that might broaden his world.
tbh i would not call richard hanania “an ex-white nationalist”; he’s a white supremacist through and through and never stopped, also, freddie deboer is as far to the left as the late unlamented gregor strasser, and probably much less.
and even with these caveats, it’s a pretty damning piece, even if every other careful reader is probably aware that siskind engages in whitewashing scientific racism and white supremacy for fucking decades.
I think it’s pretty telling that as aggressively Ratpilled as this writer seems to be (in that they still seem to be accepting rationalist framing uncritically, including a high level of discomfort in calling a spade a racist, as it were.) their toned-down critique here still cuts against the heart of who Scott tries to present himself as. Even if you interpret the subjective parts of this analysis as favorably as possible for Scott, the picture that emerges is still of a right-wing idealogue who is either hiding it or is in denial about the limitations of the worldview they’ve built for themselves.
This is actually a really damning article. Despite the carefully constructed facade, Scott simply isn’t curious about anything that might broaden his world.
tbh i would not call richard hanania “an ex-white nationalist”; he’s a white supremacist through and through and never stopped, also, freddie deboer is as far to the left as the late unlamented gregor strasser, and probably much less.
and even with these caveats, it’s a pretty damning piece, even if every other careful reader is probably aware that siskind engages in whitewashing scientific racism and white supremacy for fucking decades.
Oof, that slid right past me. I think I skimmed some of the parts the article told me it was ok to skim if I wanted to.
I think it’s pretty telling that as aggressively Ratpilled as this writer seems to be (in that they still seem to be accepting rationalist framing uncritically, including a high level of discomfort in calling a spade a racist, as it were.) their toned-down critique here still cuts against the heart of who Scott tries to present himself as. Even if you interpret the subjective parts of this analysis as favorably as possible for Scott, the picture that emerges is still of a right-wing idealogue who is either hiding it or is in denial about the limitations of the worldview they’ve built for themselves.
precisely my point.