Would you consider this speech racist?

No. I would have liked him to go deeper and not end at 26 minutes. He leaves me wanting more. I like his voice.

Gimme a break. A 1 minute, 34 second logo intro? If it wasn’t for the respect I have for the OP, I would have shut the video down at point 00:45. Bloody hell.

I’ll comment as I watch the clip.

LOL. “We’re kind of the hipster whisperers of the Alt Right…”

The featured speaker is broaching an Interesting subject: New Nihilism in the among Milenials. Something that really bothers me as I’ve personally watched American society change over the past 65 years.

“Everthing that you have.. you have inherited as a direct result of (the efforts of) people who cared about the future they wouldn’t live to see. It is precisely this that gave their lives meaning.” Hmm. He is absolutely right. This is surprising to me, coming from someone who considers themselves on the Right.

His answer to question No.2, nine minutes into the clip, is definitely racist and culturally chauvinistic by every definition. If we all followed this young Scott’s advice, the world would eventually blow itself to smithereens. I believe we can all keep the best of each of our cultures alive without being antagonistic to other cultures and instead appreciate the best they other like we do our own. I’m not sure this guy shares my views on this.

I don’t have a problem with his general opinion of morality—as stated. It is quite liberal, but his opinions on sexual morality are quite conservative and leave little room for other people’s interpretations. And his knowlege of the opinions versus the actions of “our ancestors before us” concerning sexual morality is laughable. As he uses this as the underpinning of his conservative approach to sexual morality, I see this as conflation and a mechanism surely tailored to appeal to like minded, i.e. narrow minded, conservatives. His opinions on sexual morality are therefore chauvinistic in the truest sense of the word.

His attitude toward racial mixing and racial extinction is old-school racism with a new school twist.

“Why does everyone get so excited when a whate or (whatever) disappears and not when our own race is threatened?” LOL. This is a generalization technique we often see on our “News” programs. My answer to that is that we don’t get excited very much when it is not a direct or even direct cause of man. But he goes on and pursues this line of thinking.

Yes. It is racism. It is racism in it’s most insidious form—psuedo intellectualism. This man is creating arguments—packed with fallacy—for the eventual destruction of the human race, whether he realizes it or not. He is giving ammunition to people with less education, less intelligence, less ability to recognize fallacious bullshit and with zero understanding of the future ramifications of what he is talking about.

This speaker appears open minded and liberal in the introductory portion of his speech. This is an intentional seduction. But he soon reveals himself as a fascist ideologue in a calm, intelligent voice. He will fool some people, even get some cross-overs from the frustrated Left contingent. But his new approach won’t fool people with decent radar and he won’t fool all the people all the time.

I know plenty of mixed people who don’t care beans about being mixed. The only time they care is when someone else tries to shame them for not caring. It’s holding onto the past that makes being pure of any race important to people. From my perspective, we are all Gods children. I also know people who are pure (probably mixed , because most of the world is mixed) one race who don’t care about their race. They abhor their own race because society has painted them as evil, or simply because they grew up in a very restrictive home that held on tightly to their prejudices. I say. Dwell less on your own importance and dwell more on global survival. We are all on the same boat. Doesn’t matter which end goes down. We will all sink with it if we don’t bother to do our part. If anything, it convinces me that the world would be much better if we were all completely mixed. This rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric to try to reason ignorant biases. I love being Puerto Rican but not to the detriment of my happiness. I married a man that is mixed. Our children are mixed. They have learned about two cultures. My daughter has married a white guy who is mixed , German and Irish. But he is several generations American. No real traditions, except for American Traditions. I too follow more American Traditions. I don’t feel I owed my ancestors loyalty to marry another Puerto Rican. They lived their lives as they saw fit to survive. And I will live mine the same. We don’t owe loyalty to the dead. We owe it to the living. To all of man kind.

Responding to @Pandora, didn’t watch video. Everybody is of mixed race. The only possible exceptions would be in isolated, remote African villages.

“We don’t owe loyalty to the dead. We owe it to the living, to all of mankind.”

Bravo, @Pandora. That was a powerful phrase you just turned. Very nicely done.

I don’t find it “racist”, because it doesn’t invidiously promote one race over others, or denigrate other races or in any way claim superiority of any race over others. However, it is “racialist” to coin a term if it’s not one already, in that it purports to recognize “racial characteristics” as being somehow important. I think that’s false, but I get where the speaker is coming from. My definition of racism always include elements of chauvinism and “better than other races” aspects that were lacking in what I heard.

I don’t particularly like how he attempts to compare human “races” to breeds of dog, and if you actually study how dog breeding has actually harmed the species as a whole by making some breeds that could now not survive without human assistance, that’s obviously not a good thing for the species. Dogs should not be hothouse flowers; nor humans either. I tend to think that mongrels have the best long term chances of survival. On the other hand, if we had not cross-bred and extensively cultivated some of the food crops that we have over many millennia, then we would not have survived very well as a species – certainly not as well as we have survived, or at least with our current numbers. (On the other hand, maybe we would have survived just fine, even better, perhaps “as a species” without some of the technology – and the numbers of humans altogether – that we have developed.)

So, no. Not “racist”, but “racialist” … and I don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t make the speaker a bad person, either.

Other than that, I also liked some of his comments opposing nihilism, and thought that in that sense they demonstrated a good moral stance. (And one aspect of morality is “group loyalty”, however you define your own groups. He tends to base that on a sort-of-racial-and-sort-of-national identity. I make my groupings more by shared culture, which only generally and coincidentally – and “occasionally” – correlates to nationality and to race.)

Thanks everyone for taking the time to watch this video and give your views. I thought the newspaper was wildly over reacting to call this a ’hate filled ‘video. The guy’s delivery was very calm and assured as @RedDeerGuy says and I didn’t find much to object to in what he says. I notice he was speaking at an alt-right event which is interesting to me as I knew little about the movement.

The talk was about affirming one’s identity in a globalised and multicultural world and I don’t see much wrong with that. Having an identity is natural and doesn’t automatically put you in conflict with those with different identities. Some may use their identity as an excuse to be racist but this is a perversion of the idea of identity and not a natural development.

I was in China recently and was surprised at how westernised the big cities are. The centres of Xian and Beijing and Wuhan are the same as the centres of Chicago and London with the same shops and the same happy shoppers carrying purchases home in colourful plastic bags.

But what I found most interesting was a visit to a Chinese scholar, a man who teaches traditional Chinese music and who paints and composes poetry in the traditional Chinese style. Though we had to speak through an interpreter I found his life and thoughts fascinating. He was very civil and generous with me quoting Confucius and giving me copies of his books signed in a beautiful script with ink he prepared himself as I watched.

The talk emphasized the importance of race – why we should favor our own and why race mixing is a bad thing. This sure looks to me like racism with a pseudo intellectual gloss.

I came across this quote on the Women’s March website which expresses neatly what I was trying to say…

“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” Audre Lorde