Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on August 08, 2019, 06:56:54 AM
-
I just don't see it anywhere other than on some backwater blogs.
What I do see is the categorization of the, soon to be, majority minority interests as "white Nationalism".
If you want to preserve the culture, morality, traditions and history of the United States then you are a white Nationalist.
Up until a couple years ago the first thing that popped into my head when I heard white Nationalist was skin head felons with swastika tattoos.
I'm saddened that the Republicans and Trump have adopted the terminology and definitions of the enemy. They have given ground up that will be very hard to reclaim.
The Republicans and Trump seemingly are OK with categorizing Trad cons and Paleo cons as White Nationalists. That's where it is heading. They've adopted the lefts assumptions so it is only a matter of time before they arrive at the same conclusions.
-
Let me add, Trump does seem to be a master of misdirection, rhetoric, lies and framing the issues.
So with this as well as the gun issue the best bet is to listen to what he actually does and not what he says.
-
All it really means is the usual name calling (calling people racist) is not having any effect so the left is shifting their language to anything they can find that might get traction with the voters. The shooting in El Paso just provided a convenient excuse.
-
I saw this morning that anyone who holds a Trump Fundraiser must now be put out of business (ref" the owner of Equinox health centers). Nevermind their employees I guess.
It's just getting crazy. Imagine the outrage if people started boycotting/doxxing/threatening anyone who gave campaign funds to any of the current dem hopefuls. This TDS is completely out of control.
-
boycotting/doxxing/threatening
One of these things is not like the others. :police:
Boycotting a company because you disagree with their politics is a perfectly acceptable course of action.
I do it personally and I've seen plenty of discussion here about not supporting specific companies with liberal leanings.
-
Ron,
I agree. Outright white nationalism has few supporters, and those actual supporters of the ideology tend to be eminently risible. The left has long gone out of their way to associate the right with racism and have been able to do so falsely with impunity.
That said, whether my perception is accurate or not, your posts regularly come off to me as being thinly veiled racial manifestos. Have I been misreading them?
-
I saw this morning that anyone who holds a Trump Fundraiser must now be put out of business (ref" the owner of Equinox health centers). Nevermind their employees I guess.
Means more potential govt handout dependents so for the dems it's a win win
-
'White Nationalism' is just a perjorative used now because 'racist', 'Bigoted', and 'xenophobe' have lost all of their value due to overuse.
I wasactually hoping that Trump denouncing white nationalists would lead to leftists defending white nationalists. >:D
-
(https://familyinequality.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/racist-charlie-brown.jpg?w=500)
-
If you want to preserve the culture, morality, traditions and history of the United States then you are a white Nationalist.
Well, I'm white, and I'm interested in preserving [what's left of] the culture, morality, traditions and history of the United States.
So I guess I'm a white Nationalist. So be it.
-
If you're not ashamed of being white that makes you a white supremacist/Nationalist
-
If you're not ashamed of being white that makes you a white supremacist/Nationalist
That exactly.
There is a very distinct difference between being 'proud' to be of a certain race and 'not ashamed,' the left is attempting to control the language and erase that line.
Being 'proud' that you were born a certain race is about as idiotic as being proud to have blue eyes or curly hair.
-
HOLY CRAP!!!!
It is now 88 degrees today, 8/8. WEATHER IS RACIST WHITE NATIONALIST!!!
-
Well, I'm white, and I'm interested in preserving [what's left of] the culture, morality, traditions and history of the United States.
So I guess I'm a white Nationalist. So be it.
I'm with you.
I'm white. I feel no guilt over winning the genetic lottery of being born in the US, and I won't apologize for valuing western culture over the rest of them. According to the left that makes me a white nationalist nazi. Sieg hiel?
They're going to get the violence they keep begging for one of these days. And I'm somewhere between hoping it never happens because I have a really great life and going H.L. Mencken.
-
HOLY CRAP!!!!
It is now 88 degrees today, 8/8. WEATHER IS RACIST WHITE NATIONALIST!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
i had no idea about this "88" thing before, i heard it on the Larry Elder radio show recently ....good grief
-
They're going to get the violence they keep begging for one of these days. And I'm somewhere between hoping it never happens because I have a really great life and going H.L. Mencken.
The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore. H. L. Mencken
-
'White Nationalism' is just a perjorative used now because 'racist', 'Bigoted', and 'xenophobe' have lost all of their value due to overuse.
Bingo.
Anyone else notice how quickly the media message shifted from "no political party can hope to win in this country without Hispanics," to this idea that America is controlled by "white supremacy"?
Racism of whites against non-whites, in America, has been dead for years. Not absolutely gone, of course, but utterly powerless. Anti-white racism, meanwhile, is expressed openly, and often applauded. And I'm not even talking about Farrakhan. I'm talking about influential people in media and the academy.
-
Ron,
I agree. Outright white nationalism has few supporters, and those actual supporters of the ideology tend to be eminently risible. The left has long gone out of their way to associate the right with racism and have been able to do so falsely with impunity.
That said, whether my perception is accurate or not, your posts regularly come off to me as being thinly veiled racial manifestos. Have I been misreading them?
Maybe you should elaborate on what you find "racist" about my positions.
-
The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore. H. L. Mencken
I was going for the more obvious thing about black flags, but he's not wrong.
-
I was going for the more obvious thing about black flags, but he's not wrong.
Too easy.
-
I just don't see it anywhere other than on some backwater blogs.
What I do see is the categorization of the, soon to be, majority minority interests as "white Nationalism".
If you want to preserve the culture, morality, traditions and history of the United States then you are a white Nationalist.
Up until a couple years ago the first thing that popped into my head when I heard white Nationalist was skin head felons with swastika tattoos.
I'm saddened that the Republicans and Trump have adopted the terminology and definitions of the enemy. They have given ground up that will be very hard to reclaim.
The Republicans and Trump seemingly are OK with categorizing Trad cons and Paleo cons as White Nationalists. That's where it is heading. They've adopted the lefts assumptions so it is only a matter of time before they arrive at the same conclusions.
On the first part, I would agree. White Supremacist stuff is something you don't see. However, that sort of language has been pretty much banned from public discussion and pushed underground to the point I don't think we would know how many people hold those ideas. I figure the number of hard core adherents is very low.
I don't know if I agree on that last part. IMO, it doesn't help to get in a battle of definitions with crazy leftists. Something to think about I guess.
-
I don't know if I agree on that last part. IMO, it doesn't help to get in a battle of definitions with crazy leftists. Something to think about I guess.
Considering what is now being labeled "white nationalist" maybe Trump & Co are going to agree with the left and impose their own definitions.
The left and the media (redundant, I know) have been beating him with this cudgel for two years now so maybe Trump is going to steal the issue from them and go after his version of "white nationalists".
-
thanks for a great idea, from now on, when criticizing "black lives matter/nation of islam" etc....I am going to call them "white nationalist"
-
Maybe you should elaborate on what you find "racist" about my positions.
I believe the term I used was "thinly veiled racial manifestos". You have repeatedly referred to demographic replacement of "Heritage Americans" - a term which sometimes is used to imply membership in a group of people with certain traditional American beliefs (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=60425.msg1214763#msg1214763) and other times possibly Americans of European heritage (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=58596.msg1193610#msg1193610). The context often sounds a lot like a defeated White Nationalist who used to carry a Tiki torch while chanting "YOU WILL NOT REPLACE US!" and "BLOOD AND SOIL!" and now dejectedly says "Yeah, they're going to replace us." Maybe you actually mean the diversity of morality and what societies hold sacrosanct, but then you go and regularly conflate ethical and ethnic diversity.
Perhaps it stands out most when you use terms like "demographic replacement", as demography typically doesn't take into consideration things like morality, values, or ethics. If your real problem is people who do not hold traditional American ethics, I'd expect you to say that. Instead you tend to focus on demographics.
Your oft-repeated position on identity politics seems to imply a support for racial separatism to avoid conflict, if not outright superiority. I.e., your regularly repeated refrain that diversity and proximity leads to conflict. Sure, there are some kinds of diversity for which that is true but the implication always seems to be diversity of race or national origin.
If read in the most generous way your posts might be reasonable, but you seem to be intentionally riding the line. As during the census discussion when you just couldn't quite bring yourself to come out and say "Screw the Constitution, let's do things MY way," yet still kept dancing right up to the line and dropping blunt hints in that direction. My impression is that you aren't posting what you really want to say knowing it would be soundly rejecte,) so instead you rephrase it slightly trying to make it palatable. From a lot of the responses in this thread trying on "white nationalist" as a sobriquet I think you're making progress.
It is entirely possible I'm misreading you, or that you just don't know the definition and common uses of words like "demographic", but since you've always struck me as a well-read, intelligent guy I thought I'd ask for clarification.
And to everyone in this thread laughing about "Ha! I must be a 'white' 'nationalist'! I'm so edgy!" ... okay, you might be, but I hope not. Just because you're wrongly labeled a certain way by the left doesn't mean you need to lean into it and become that.
For some time I've wondered if the constant refrain from the Right to decry things they disliked as socialist caused more and more people on the left who supported those policies (which by and large fell short of socialism) to shrug and say "fine, then if we're going to be called socialist then we'll lean into it and call ourselves that!" which quickly morphed into "let's be actual Socialists," Not so many years ago that was a dirty word, but now it is entirely acceptable to claim that title on the national stage (so long as it is softened with "democratic" first). Yeah, I get that there has long been a strain of real socialism and communism in the left, but by and large that was rejected ... until it wasn't.
I don't want to see the same thing happen on the Right with crap like white nationalism.
-
I believe the term I used was "thinly veiled racial manifestos". You have repeatedly referred to demographic replacement of "Heritage Americans" - a term which sometimes is used to imply membership in a group of people with certain traditional American beliefs (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=60425.msg1214763#msg1214763) and other times possibly Americans of European heritage (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=58596.msg1193610#msg1193610). The context often sounds a lot like a defeated White Nationalist who used to carry a Tiki torch while chanting "YOU WILL NOT REPLACE US!" and "BLOOD AND SOIL!" and now dejectedly says "Yeah, they're going to replace us." Maybe you actually mean the diversity of morality and what societies hold sacrosanct, but then you go and regularly conflate ethical and ethnic diversity.
Perhaps it stands out most when you use terms like "demographic replacement", as demography typically doesn't take into consideration things like morality, values, or ethics. If your real problem is people who do not hold traditional American ethics, I'd expect you to say that. Instead you tend to focus on demographics.
Your oft-repeated position on identity politics seems to imply a support for racial separatism to avoid conflict, if not outright superiority. I.e., your regularly repeated refrain that diversity and proximity leads to conflict. Sure, there are some kinds of diversity for which that is true but the implication always seems to be diversity of race or national origin.
If read in the most generous way your posts might be reasonable, but you seem to be intentionally riding the line. As during the census discussion when you just couldn't quite bring yourself to come out and say "Screw the Constitution, let's do things MY way," yet still kept dancing right up to the line and dropping blunt hints in that direction. My impression is that you aren't posting what you really want to say knowing it would be soundly rejecte,) so instead you rephrase it slightly trying to make it palatable. From a lot of the responses in this thread trying on "white nationalist" as a sobriquet I think you're making progress.
It is entirely possible I'm misreading you, or that you just don't know the definition and common uses of words like "demographic", but since you've always struck me as a well-read, intelligent guy I thought I'd ask for clarification.
And to everyone in this thread laughing about "Ha! I must be a 'white' 'nationalist'! I'm so edgy!" ... okay, you might be, but I hope not. Just because you're wrongly labeled a certain way by the left doesn't mean you need to lean into it and become that.
For some time I've wondered if the constant refrain from the Right to decry things they disliked as socialist caused more and more people on the left who supported those policies (which by and large fell short of socialism) to shrug and say "fine, then if we're going to be called socialist then we'll lean into it and call ourselves that!" which quickly morphed into "let's be actual Socialists," Not so many years ago that was a dirty word, but now it is entirely acceptable to claim that title on the national stage (so long as it is softened with "democratic" first). Yeah, I get that there has long been a strain of real socialism and communism in the left, but by and large that was rejected ... until it wasn't.
I don't want to see the same thing happen on the Right with crap like white nationalism.
Not to speak for Ron, though I'm sure he will pipe up eventually.
First, children of immigrants vote at about 75% democrat. Thus, the more immigrants we import, the faster we move to what will almost certainly be a permanent democrat supermajority. Even democrats frequently celebrate the "diversifying" of America and this is why - because whites, men in particular, vote overwhelmingly conservative and are intractable to their plans.
Thus, functionally and heuristically, demographics is destiny. The browner we get (because almost all immigrants are brown of some flavor) the more left we get. If we say that democrats and progressives are actively subverting the morals, traditions, financial success, and political determination of "Heritage Americans" (of which I am one, 1640 gang rise up!), then it would follow that immigrants, and illegal immigrants and their children specifically, are being used to replace or at least knock us down to a permanent minority.
Immigration has been a sacrosanct value for much of the 20th century and that doesn't seem to be working out well for us, if you look at how the children of 20th century immigrants vote. Working off 2010 statistics and rounding up some, we have around 50 million foreign born people in the US right now. I think that's quite enough.
The reason the left can sling accusations like "white nationlism" around is because on some level we all know that demographics, for good or evil, highly corresponds to voting behavior. In whites that is often based on class but with other races it is mostly just that they all vote democrat. There are exceptions of course.
I myself am not a white nationalist and would prefer not to have to interact with race in this deterministic fashion. I do believe America will thrive best as a white majority nation that treats her minorities well under a constitutional limited government. I do consider myself a nationalist and a nativist, because everyone should have a country that belongs to them and that they have a share of its sovereignty.
I should be able to say that I don't want any more immigrants for no other reason than "this is my country and I like it the way I like it."
I am not delusional about turning the US into a blood and soil nation over a nation of ideas. I abhor facism. But I think it would be smart to think about what ideas immigrants subscribe to when they move here and think about letting things settle for a couple decades before we do anything else.
There is no magic dirt. Demographics are, unfortunately, destiny.
-
The demographic replacement of the white majority is not a delusion of the white nationalists, neo Nazi's or racists.
Any honest look at the results of the change to our immigration laws in 1965 will show, by the numbers, that those changes combined with the defacto decriminalization of sneaking into our country and ignoring our laws is replacing European Americans at a fever pitch.
This wasn't natural, normal or even desired by the American people, it was foisted upon a gullible, somnambulist public by both Democrat and Republican politicians.
Every wave of previous immigration was followed with a period of low immigration while the new folks learned our ways and hopefully brought something new to the party. That hasn't happened this time.
When a country goes from 85+% white European descent to 60% within 50 years while showing no signs of slowing down what do you call it if not demographic replacement?
While a small percentage is due to birth rates the overwhelming majority is due to government policy of importing non-European peoples into the nation.
I'm not imagining all the articles that Ive read over the years, articles detailing in nearly gloating terms how America is on course to be minority majority in the not so distant future.
This has been government policy.
Is pointing out government policy thinly veiled racism?
Furthermore, immigrants of all races and ethnicity vote left, socialist, authoritarian, welfare state by overwhelming majorities.
Now we have large immigrant populations we have to win over at this late date. We have to convince them to embrace something they have no cultural history of nor natural inclination towards. Do we really want to keep importing more and more leftists?
When you keep doing the same thing over and over and are surprised at the result what does that say about you?
I went from a full blown libertarian to this position not because I hate anyone. I love America and want some shadow or remnant of it to survive the coming unrest and/or into the future.
You may not be racist or tribalist or have loyalties to your people that transcend the USA but a large percentage of the people we are importing and have imported do have loyalties to their tribe, people and cultures first, with America and American principles way down on the list.
In case you've missed it, they seem to have a big problem with whites and apparently my existence here is "problematic"
Wake up and listen to what the left is saying.
Wake up and look at what the government media complex has convinced Heritage Americans is normal.
Being replaced and made to feel guilty about history is not normal.
Reject the narrative.
You don't have to hate anybody to reject the narrative.
-
At some point in time, probably centuries from now, whites will be concentrated into areas and a leader emerge that will want to expand their empire into lands controlled by illiterate, stone age barbarians. This will lead to mass slaughter on an industrial scale. I suspect this will happen after the Untied States and EU slowly falls apart like the Roman Empire.
History, bitches.
-
I don't know when the term "white nationalism" came into use, but I see it as the analog of black nationalism. (https://www.britannica.com/event/black-nationalism) A black nationalist is not defined as a black American who loves the U.S. and wants her borders and traditions respected. So white nationalism can't be defined as the white version of that, either.
I think there is a tendency to confuse different meanings of the term "nationalism." I tend to think of it as the Modern Era notion (about 1500 to sometime in the 19th century) that nations of people should govern themselves (or at least be locally governed). It means we have defined borders. Nationals have a right to be within those borders. Foreigners may be allowed, but must ask.
Open borders is a rejection of that modern idea, and I think there's plenty of reason to see it as a devolution to a pre-Reformation and pre-Enlightenment era.
But most people don't see it that way, and "white nationalism" has nothing to do with the above.
-
I don't know when the term "white nationalism" came into use, but I see it as the analog of black nationalism. (https://www.britannica.com/event/black-nationalism) A black nationalist is not defined as a black American who loves the U.S. and wants her borders and traditions respected. So white nationalism can't be defined as the white version of that, either.
I think there is a tendency to confuse different meanings of the term "nationalism." I tend to think of it as the Modern Era notion (about 1500 to sometime in the 19th century) that nations of people should govern themselves (or at least be locally governed). It means we have defined borders. Nationals have a right to be within those borders. Foreigners may be allowed, but must ask.
Open borders is a rejection of that modern idea, and I think there's plenty of reason to see it as a devolution to a pre-Reformation and pre-Enlightenment era.
But most people don't see it that way, and "white nationalism" has nothing to do with the above.
There is a powerful movement that has been going on to dilute the western world (Christian Anglo-Saxon culture) with incompatible inferior cultures. Western culture is all that stands between the most advanced, most free state of the world that has ever existed, and a globohomo dictatorship run by a handful of interests.
Unfortunately, many of the mainline Christian churches have already been subverted.
-
I'm all for the superiority of Western culture (or at least the Modern phase of it) over inferior cultures (such as what obtains in the West today).
That being said, Western culture is not synonymous with Anglo-Saxons. Or even Christians, really. The pagan Greeks are part of the West's heritage, after all.
-
I'm open to concerns about immigration. Illegal immigration especially. However, when you start making arguments about how to handle people based on the how the average of people with a given color skin might vote, you've lost me. Black people in the US vote more strongly Democratic than any immigrant group I'm aware of (80%+). How do you want to handle them? Maybe give some ground on the abortion argument to keep their population down? Oh wait, yeah, I think I've seen that argument here.
-
I'm open to concerns about immigration. Illegal immigration especially. However, when you start making arguments about how to handle people based on the how the average of people with a given color skin might vote, you've lost me. Black people in the US vote more strongly Democratic than any immigrant group I'm aware of (80%+). How do you want to handle them? Maybe give some ground on the abortion argument to keep their population down? Oh wait, yeah, I think I've seen that argument here.
You've made a leap I intentionally didn't make but intended to clarify on, so please forgive my oversight.
Blacks and legacy Hispanics belong here and they deserve a voice. Full stop.
I don't want to be ruled in perpetuity by Marxist progressives who hate my people, Red State Americans.
But, I also reserve the right to want to be surrounded by the people I prefer in the country of my birth--simply because it is my country and I have that right.
-
You've made a leap I intentionally didn't make but intended to clarify on, so please forgive my oversight.
Blacks and legacy Hispanics belong here and they deserve a voice. Full stop.
My mistake.
I don't want to be ruled in perpetuity by Marxist progressives who hate my people, Red State Americans.
Okay. So just to be clear:
The Left is evil because they want to racially game the immigration system to ensure their voting majority because they don't want to be ruled by Fascist bitter-clingers who hate their people, Blue State Americans.
You are righteous and your cause just because you also want to racially game the immigration system to ensure your voting majority because you don't want to be ruled by Marxist progressives who hate your people, Red State Americans.
That about correct?
But, I also reserve the right to want to be surrounded by the people I prefer in the country of my birth--simply because it is my country and I have that right.
Sure, you can move away from brown colored people, and you can vote for people who want fewer brown colored people to move here I guess, but just because you want something doesn't make it so. Much less a right. Leftists live here too. What if those Hispanics (whom you have already determined deserve a voice) want their extended family still living in Mexico to move here so they can be surrounded by the people they prefer in the country of their birth?
Personally, I'd like to leave the racial games, and even the political cynicism out of immigration policy and instead have it focus on allowing the immigration and naturalization of people with something worthwhile to contribute to the country. Yes, I know I will probably disagree politically with a lot of those people.
-
My mistake.
Okay. So just to be clear:
The Left is evil because they want to racially game the immigration system to ensure their voting majority because they don't want to be ruled by Fascist bitter-clingers who hate their people, Blue State Americans.
You are righteous and your cause just because you also want to racially game the immigration system to ensure your voting majority because you don't want to be ruled by Marxist progressives who hate your people, Red State Americans.
Can we agree that duking out a total culture war within the borders of a country is bad enough without intentionally importing millions of people who will eventually tip the scales to one side permanently?
Sure, you can move away from brown colored people, and you can vote for people who want fewer brown colored people to move here I guess, but just because you want something doesn't make it so. Much less a right. Leftists live here too. What if those Hispanics (whom you have already determined deserve a voice) want their extended family still living in Mexico to move here so they can be surrounded by the people they prefer in the country of their birth?
What I meant is that broadly speaking, as Americans - not just me in particular - we can say *no* to immigration. It's not a sacrament we have to perform to have a healthy country. I have come to believe quite the opposite. Obviously I disagree about that very meaningfully with other Americans. But the opinion isn't wrong just because I have it. As far as chain migration, etc - I am for a total ban on immigration.
Personally, I'd like to leave the racial games, and even the political cynicism out of immigration policy and instead have it focus on allowing the immigration and naturalization of people with something worthwhile to contribute to the country. Yes, I know I will probably disagree politically with a lot of those people.
I agree completely. It would be best if we could leave the racial games etc out of policy. In fact, that's what the right has been trying to do ever since Eisenhower. Yet, we still keep getting our asses kicked.
Ceasing all immigration might not save use from progressivism, but *not* ceasing it will definitely give progressives total victory in the end. Those are our only two real options.
-
Okay. So just to be clear:
The Left is evil because they want to racially game the immigration system to ensure their voting majority because they don't want to be ruled by Fascist bitter-clingers who hate their people, Blue State Americans.
You are righteous and your cause just because you also want to racially game the immigration system to ensure your voting majority because you don't want to be ruled by Marxist progressives who hate your people, Red State Americans.
I'm not Jocassee, and I don't even necessarily agree with his ideas on immigration, but this paragraph of yours stood out to me and I thought deserved comment. Not just because it's the old cultural relativism argument, but because it neatly mischaracterizes the entire issue.
The left (more specifically, the far left of American politics) is evil because they espouse a world view that subsumes personal freedoms and individual sovereignty to a nebulous idea of the greater good, and the collective. they believe the collective is more important than the individual, and that's what makes them evil. Some of their tactics are themselves inherently morally wrong (Mob violence against non-combatants for example) but some tactics aren't in themselves wrong (attempting to get and keep political power to ensure ones philosophy flourishes) unless those tactics are used in the service of a wrong.
It's also worth pointing out, again, that Cultural Relativism is illogical on it's face. Some cultures are quantifiablly better than others, and pretending they are all the same is folly.
-
Can we agree that duking out a total culture war within the borders of a country is bad enough without intentionally importing millions of people who will eventually tip the scales to one side permanently?
Like I said, I'm not inherently against reducing immigration or at the very least enforcing our immigration laws. That said, your original position appeared to be (only barely paraphrased) "brown people vote Democrat, so we should keep brown people out." You're not going to get me to buy in to that.
Not just because it's the old cultural relativism argument, but because it neatly mischaracterizes the entire issue.
First off, this is not simply relativism. Ron and Jocassee have each condemned the left for using immigration policy as a tool to adjust the racial balance of the country for political expedience. Then they propose to do the same thing for their own side. Maybe that results in a greater percentage of people who agree with me, but it's not a reasonable way to achieve that goal.
The left (more specifically, the far left of American politics) is evil because they espouse a world view that subsumes personal freedoms and individual sovereignty to a nebulous idea of the greater good, and the collective. they believe the collective is more important than the individual, and that's what makes them evil. Some of their tactics are themselves inherently morally wrong (Mob violence against non-combatants for example) but some tactics aren't in themselves wrong (attempting to get and keep political power to ensure ones philosophy flourishes) unless those tactics are used in the service of a wrong.
Absofrickenlutely. I'm all about condemning the far left for their (many, many, many, many) moral faults. Not least of which is collectivism and the identity politics that is inherent to how they push it. I'm pushing back against Ron and Jocassee playing that same racial identity politics game, not the generic idea of political groups exerting influence to try to keep power.
It's also worth pointing out, again, that Cultural Relativism is illogical on it's face. Some cultures are quantifiablly better than others, and pretending they are all the same is folly.
I don't disagree. Do you believe I've said otherwise?
-
First off, this is not simply relativism. Ron and Jocassee have each condemned the left for using immigration policy as a tool to adjust the racial balance of the country for political expedience. Then they propose to do the same thing for their own side. Maybe that results in a greater percentage of people who agree with me, but it's not a reasonable way to achieve that goal.
Ron and Jocassee are against the destruction of our culture via endless immigration of peoples incompatible with it, unless I'm reading them wrong. That's hardly equivalent to the Left's importing voters because no actual citizens will vote for them anymore.
Also, the current zeitgeist is that anyone is entitled to just immigrate (legally or otherwise) to our country, and it's absurd. Magic dirt theory is BS.
-
Since when is opposing flooding the country with "not Americans" gaming the system?
Do the citizens have any say in how this country country is run? They voted to build a wall and curtail illegal immigration. Multiple times actually, from Reagan thru Trump excepting Obama.
If the government gets tired of dealing with its citizens because they won't get with the program does it have the right to import a bunch of more compliant malleable new citizens?
Why would you let people who reject the founding principles of this country in as citizens? Do you have a death wish?
-
First of all, I have no issue with immigration controls. Exactly what those should be I don't know but am open to being convinced. I'm not sure I agree with Jocassee that entirely eliminating immigration is the way to go though.
Regardless, this thread is about white nationalism, right? I don't know if the following is the best definition but it was the first one I found:
White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity. Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation. White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost. Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race, and some believe these things are being promoted as part of an attempted white genocide.
Ron and Jocassee, which aspects of the above definition would you reject as not fitting your belief structure? Seems to me you're both using a American culture as your gold standard instead of a generic white culture, but both have appeared to argue that white majority is a necessity in order to to preserve that American culture. From what I can tell you've made pragmatic arguments instead of supremacist arguments.
-
Eventually the strongest tribe will be supplanted or replaced. That seems to be the way of empires. We shouldn't be eager to hasten it by flooding the country with non-Americans.
The competing tribes are in a shaky alliance to take out the primary tribe Heritage Americans. They unfortunately have a different view of our history, founding principles and documents.
An imperfect previous post proposing an imperfect solution, civic nationalism based upon the founding principles and documents, not just shared geography.
Civic Nationalism and a return to the respect for the right of association is our only hope.
We are not all equal in every way, we are not the same. As individuals, as races, as ethnicities and every other stupid intersectional category, we are not the same. Hierarchies, competencies and gifts all exist in different measure across the human spectrum. Viva la difference!
Our only hope is strong Federalism taking over under the umbrella of strong civic nationalism that protects the rights of people to be who they are, many tribes and peoples united under a constitutional umbrella. We actually resemble an empire more than a nation. Multiple peoples, cultures sharing one land, one government, empire.
Turning us into an undifferentiated grey mush of generic consumers is civilizational suicide. It won’t work as tribalism will assert itself.
Let the people segregate and separate as they see fit. Devolve government authority over people down to the most local level.
If some people want to live in a multicultural area of the nation, more power to them.
If some prefer to live in a more homogeneous area of the country filled with their people they should be able to do that in America, with no government interference.
Maximum local control AND accountability.
The financial obligations of the various “tribes” one to another should be limited to what is spelled out in the constitution.
The chains need to go back on a certain group of people.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Federal government, the judiciary and houses of Congress.
Bind them down with the chains of the constitution.
Unfortunately, I really think that's a pipe dream.
The socialists, communists, leftists, Democrats seem to be hell bent on fundamentally changing the country.
-
Can the president actually close the borders? (I think so, but not sure) We need to assimilate the legal immigrants we have now and deport as many illegals as possible before letting any more in. But I don't think even Trump is ballsy enough to do that, or maybe it would just cost him too much political capital.
The House Democrats would definitely impeach him for it (don't know what grounds, but impeachment is a political process so they don't need a valid reason), but I doubt the Senate would convict.
-
We've replaced the liberty of civic Nationalism with the totalitarianism of radical egalitarianism.
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-meeting-transcript.html
Get ready for more race relations talk about the evil white man from the New York Times.
They don't hide their agenda, they flaunt it in our faces.
I know, I'm the bad guy for noticing. Noticing things is bad.
I guess if you don't agree that the foundations of our nation and all its institutions are racist you might be a white nationalist.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-meeting-transcript.html
Geez. Slate actually did something right by publishing that. Not for the reasons they probably thought, but it certainly documents the huge biases of the NYT staff.
-
Geez. Slate actually did something right by publishing that. Not for the reasons they probably thought, but it certainly documents the huge biases of the NYT staff.
More likely the cockroaches don't bother hiding anymore when the light is turned on but rather now feel empowered by it.
-
More likely the cockroaches don't bother hiding anymore when the light is turned on but rather now feel empowered by it.
They are so confident that they've won they no longer feel the need to hide.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
They are so confident that they've won they no longer feel the need to hide.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
Exactly
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-meeting-transcript.html
Get ready for more race relations talk about the evil white man from the New York Times.
They don't hide their agenda, they flaunt it in our faces.
Care to flaunt some of the highlights for us?
-
Care to flaunt some of the highlights for us?
Really only needs one:
"I feel like racism is everything"
Literal quote from the transcript and says so much with 6 words.
-
Really only needs one:
"I feel like racism is everything"
Literal quote from the transcript and says so much with 6 words.
Thanks.
-
Really only needs one:
"I feel like racism is everything"
Literal quote from the transcript and says so much with 6 words.
Yup. While they guy leading the discussion was obviously far left, he appeared to at least be trying to inject the idea of "unbiased" into the discussion. But not a one of the people in the room seemed to want to budge an inch on "EVERYTHING IS RACIST - ESPECIALLY TRUMP!!!!!"
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-meeting-transcript.html
Get ready for more race relations talk about the evil white man from the New York Times.
They don't hide their agenda, they flaunt it in our faces.
I know, I'm the bad guy for noticing. Noticing things is bad.
I guess if you don't agree that the foundations of our nation and all its institutions are racist you might be a white nationalist.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/16/the-new-york-times-is-clueless-about-conservatives/
-
Good article.
The right has been asleep mostly while the ground underneath has moved.
Any push back from the right is and will be seen as questionable and reactionary.
The left is immersed in an egalitarian delusion.
We're losing the ability to even communicate with each other.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
San Francisco looking to teach American exceptionalism. Not
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/school-board-working-to-put-ethnic-studies-at-heart-of-district-curriculum/
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
If you're white shut up
MSNBC Guest Tiffany Cross: It Is Not White People’s Place to Determine If Trump Is Racist
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/18/msnbc-guest-tiffany-cross-it-is-not-white-peoples-place-to-determine-if-trump-is-racist/
-
Lines are so blurred that nobody even knows what color and race (and gender, but that's another topic) are.
An old friend (female) whose ex-husband is a Mexican who lives and works in Texas (legally, and who may even be an American citizen) e-mailed me a couple of days ago to implore me to "do something" about ending gun violence against people of color. Her example is her 45-year old son, whom she described as "Mexican-American."
I won't get into it with her, but ... since when is "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" a color? It may be an ethnicity, but that would depend entirely on how he was raised. His mother is very Anglo in heritage, looks, and speech. I don't think her son would even qualify as "Latino," and since I don't think he was raised in Spain he certainly isn't "Hispanic."
I contrast this to my late wife, who was from South America. She was adamant that she was a Latina, but that she had never been to Spain so she wasn't Hispanic. And she strongly protested any attempts to classify her race as anything other than "White."