What is a white nationalist?
As in "white nationalist memes abound on *some social media platform*"?
Yes, I'm asking because I don't want to look. "Black nationalism" was the MalcolmX abandonment of hope for peace and good will between whites and blacks. How does white nationalism compare?
Yes, I'm asking because I don't want to look. "Black nationalism" was the MalcolmX abandonment of hope for peace and good will between whites and blacks. How does white nationalism compare?
Comments (41)
And the book:
http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
I don't think I need to spell out the fact that nationalism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
No, it's a good thread. I just came off as judgmental.
Sorry.
If there are white Americans who want some form of isolation, what does that even mean? That was my question.
There seem to be several countries that are nationalistic, but not authoritarian. Iceland springs to mind, as does Japan, and certain Eastern European democracies. Why do you think "nationalism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism", when empirical evidence suggests otherwise?
Well now that, that implicit assumption that I have held has been expressed and open to criticism and examination, I'm not that sure it be true anymore. So, I seem to be at fault in assuming so.
What were you quoting from?
It was a prejudice of mine. Nothing more or nothing less.
Hum, the whole freaking fabric of japanese society is lacquered in authoritarianism.
It's a society which is perfectly comfortable saying that they do not want to share their space with other cultures. The Japanese state itself describes their society as monocultural.
Being monocultural is one thing, and it can easily slip into the kind of thing white nationalism is, but it's different in some significant ways. Insisting that one's culture shouldn't necessarily mix with other cultures is often a conservative stance, but can be progressive (like not wanting to compromise on women's rights just cause older Muslim immigrants object).
White nationalism is not only about culture, it is more about race. The idea is that whites are different in meaningful ways (usually seen as better) than non-whites. They don't just insist on total behavioral assimilation-they don't want other races to mix with their own.
It's very close to black nationalism, which also insists on meaningful differences, but of course the history and psychology behind it is different. BNs (in America at least) are/were trying to reestablish an identity that had been taken from them by force by whites.
Nationalism is slightly more... how to say... epurated? Ineffable? But essentially, the only purpose of nationalism is to ensure the nation's head authority.
What if the nation is a republic?
That doesn't influence the nature of nationalism. It's just a different form of political fiction.
It doesnt matter if it's a President, a Prime Minister, a Grand Director or a Council of Elders that makes the decision, in all cases nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind it.
Question the wisdom behind what? I don't understand what you mean.
Behind the decision.
Long ago, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate to America, and only white land owning males could vote...
Fast forward to 1830, the rising populist Andrew Jackson rabble roused his way to the white house by promising suffrage for all white males...
Fast forward to 1860-61, A nascent Kansas is being settled and becomes a state politically allied with the northern states, which gave the north a majority in the electoral college, which causes southern states to attempt succession. Out of necessity during the civil war, the great emancipator (notably a racist himself) "freed" the slaves of the south (told them to revolt), and at some point afterward we all decided that the civil war was fought over slavery alone, and not to maintain the union.
The KKK formed as a reaction to all the newly free blacks following the civil war (within a potpourri of resentment, racism, and fear directed at catholics, blacks, jews, and foreigners of all stripes) ...
Fast forward 50 years and the KKK has spread to harness the full magnitude of prejudice in the U.S, and in some states its popularity could function as a barometer for racism and human rights abuses.
Meanwhile, in Europe...
German civilian pilots soar gracefully above the national discontent below, and as the ire of one particular malcontent comes to a head, the cultural and political climate of fear and resentment present in the nation allow him to slowly but surely rise to power. The old European anti-semetic meme was revitalized along with a new idea that one specific ethnic group of people are the superior ethnicity, and that a nation should be founded by and for this superior ethnicity to protect it's traditions, culture, legacy, and genetic superiority. Graceful German pilots become graceful German killers under a banner of white supremacy and nationalism.
By 1950, the idea is well out there. Though the nazi party were defeated (an ironic end for the white nationalists among them), bad ideas often behave like cancer, and this particular bad idea has been singularly immortalized by the second world war. Scientology also springs to mind for some reason...
During the 60's, our societies were becoming more and more diversified. Immigration reforms coincided with equal rights movements, and overtime the segregationist and supremacist elements of western political culture were marginalized and defeated.
By the 90's, white supremacy was highly frowned upon, and so naturally it had a small but dedicated following consisting of young misanthropic skinheads as recruits being lead by the old-guard white supremacist ideologues of the 50's-80's. At this point they were a mere counterculture in the mainstream of new political correctness that sought to civilize and bring an end to the emotionally charged and prejudiced rhetoric of the past. Bona fide racism saw a massive decline in the west between the 60's and the turn of the millennium, but just as we were about to turn an important corner of intellectual maturation, the internet happened. The recruitment and organizational capacity of social media, in my opinion, saved the white nationalist "movement", along with saving and birthing many other emotionally founded movements which function as mutual fuel for each other's bonfires. The easiest way to recruit someone into white nationalism is by exposing them to the radical rhetoric of their diametric opposition, white guilt.
As they exist today, the "alt-right" ethno-nationalists are a conglomeration of this inglorious history. They're awash in a mix of pseudoscience, fear, historical misreading, and general dissatisfaction. And to boot they've managed to build raison d'etres within the delusion that the white race is presently being genocided and requires saving. Wikipedia gives a decent summary:
Nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind the choices made by your government.
In other words, nationalism makes you believe that being a traitor is necessarily a wrong thing. There is nothing, however, which guarantees that betraying your nation is not going to be the morally right choice in any event.
As such, it's a fallacy.
This passage of your post caused me to have a stunned look on my face. I think I still have it. Really? Couldn't it be that the internet facilitated a pendulum swing that was going to happen anyway? Or no, the technology exacerbated an underlying feature of the culture?
BTW, your history of the American Civil War isn't exactly right. The real sequence of events was ten times more bizarre than that.
It could be that in some cases this is true, but there are also cases where nationalism wells up from grass roots. It's apt to be a response to a social illness, but I think some societies are just more nationalistic at baseline. Both the US and Britain are.
I don't know if Canada is or not. Is it?
Whether it magnified or amplified, distilled or quickened, concealed or revealed, the contemporary result is the same: a new wave of white nationalism flowing mainly through the cultural canal of the internet. The internet represents a change in the landscape and transportation of ideas and culture, and for various reasons extreme ideologies are finding niches to fill within the new landscape.
White nationalism as you might hear it bandied today was reborn in one of the internet's many facets.
Quoting frank
Well I did elect to leave a few things out, heh, but did I get any of my dates or major points wrong? I was pulling rather quickly from memory so do let me know if I've bungled something up terribly.
Do you write music? For some reason that's blowing my mind.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The South seceded because Lincoln was elected. Lincoln was elected because the southern delegates to the Democratic National Convention of 1859 stood up, walked out, and had their own convention. This was a political reversal. The anti-slavery people in the north had always been fragmented and prone to apathy. The slavery forces were always united, so slavery always won the presidency. Lincoln had been instrumental in gathering the anti-slavery forces together into the Republican Party after the shock of the so-called Dred Scott Decision. Now anti-slavery (to be clearly distinguished from abolitionist) was running one candidate for president. Pro-slavery had two. LIncoln won.
Southerners started becoming hysterical when LIncoln was elected, completely overlooking the fact that the Supreme Court had promised them final victory in the Dred Scott Decision. Southerners had been soaking in apocalyptic prophecy about a massive slave revolt where black men would rise up, take up arms and kill all the white people. They believed the abolitionists (probably about 5% of the American population) were attempting to help this world-ending vision to become a reality. So this was their understanding of an attempt made by an abolitionist named John Brown to take over a federal arsenal in Harper's Ferry, Va. Brown was executed, but the news that an abolitionist had tried to take an arsenal triggered fear. The Democrats said they had evidence that top Republicans were involved the Harper's Ferry Incident, and they named Lincoln (which was ridiculous.)
When Lincoln was elected, many Southerners earnestly believed something like the Anti-Christ had just been elected president. They just wanted to isolate themselves from it.
They didn't need to secede in order to protect slavery. And Lincoln wasn't racist. He had grown up poor and had no romantic feelings about black people. He wasn't crusading to ease their suffering. He believed suffering is part of life for everyone. He believed slavery was a disease on the vision of the Free Society. When people get used to having someone do their work for them, they lose sight of the meaning of freedom. The master is not free, he just has the preferred role in an un-free world. The master is just as locked in to his role as the slave.
Freedom means recognizing that you are not the role you are playing. You can pull your spirit out of whatever role you're in and invest it in some other role (like President of the USA).
The canadian government pushes a lot of "identity building" through the various media outlet they back, such as the CBC or Maccleans. At least, the french appendage of the CBC, Radio-Canada, is pretty much neutral.
This identity building results in a lot of chauvisnism. We see ourselves as more polite than most other people, including most European nations, and I can tell you, as someone who spent time on Alberta's oil field, the average Canadian swears like a trucker. We see ourselves as more responsible, more intelligent, better educated (which is, sadly, kinda true, americans need to pick up the pace on this).
It's not the worst nationalism. We don't think we can win at everything and against everyone, contrary to some others. But it definitely blinds us to our own issues of racism, sexism, etc...
And the way we treat the First Nations here... :vomit:
Sorry, but that's the point ; no we are not. Being polite is a must, not something you are awesome for. We have serial killers, rapists and morons like any other country, and just because we don't litter or swear as much as our southern neighbours, doesn't mean we don't have deep issues to tackle.
That's so strange... for me (and I think I can speak for most Canadians on this) there is simply nothing that could force me to live somewhere I would not feel safe.
And Detroit gave us Sugar Man Rodriguez. That bought it a lot of goodwill credit.
Maybe by respecting their own culture they respect other cultures. If they had no respect for other cultures they may wish to invade beyond Japan.
Does an Imam, for example, generally respect the West?
FDR was nationalist and far from an isolationist. His sentiments have not died out in the US.
My country right or wrong, is still right....where "my" means white. The majority ethnicity claims possession of an abstract notion of "country" whose value is held above normative standards of correctness or error. The male glaze is similar to the implied ownership of culture by the majority ethnicity. Most (black & white) view culture through white lenses because the white majority controls how and what gets presented in culture as culture.
Compare to a White (or Black) patriot...my country for better or worse. The patriot (white or black) and the nationalist both express love of country, but the patriot's love is about living up to community virtues. The patriot's sense of duty is driven by core social/private values, which they confirm in their actions.
One thing you need to keep in mind is the Democrat party was the party of slavery in the 1800's. It was the party of segregation, the party of discrimination, Jim Crow laws and KKK, until the 1950s, when the Democrat party started to divide among itself. The Republican party under President Lincoln opposed slavery and worked hard to repeal it. The Republican party started the NAACP.
During the Civil War, hundreds of thousands of Republicans died to free the slaves and keep the country united. These brave men paid it forward, with their lives, for all the white Republicans of the future. What is the value of a human life? Multiply that by 200,000 and this is the amount paid forward. The white Republicans are exempt from the term white guilt, due to this debt already paid in advance.
The Democrats, on the other hand, were not only the party of slavery, but they doubled down in terms of slavery, with hundreds of thousands of Democrats willing to die to maintain slavery. The Democrats passed forward a huge debt, that was never fully paid off. Most of this debt still hangs over the heads of the Democrats.
The analogy for the Republicans paying forward was connected to slavery itself. If a slave was bought and set free by his master, he was a free man. Legally, he could not be enslaved again. This path of payment forward gave freedom not just for the slave, but also his future children. This same was true of the Republican sacrifice during the Civil War. Their sacrifice paid to free the Republicans from all future mental enslavement. The Democrats then and now illegally try to re-enslaved those who were legally free.
The modern Democrats, are running a scam, where they to lump all whites, including those who had been paid forward, and who never did anything, in an attempt to water down the Democrat exclusive debt. One way for the Democrats to get out of debt is similar to bankruptcy, where they need to junk pile the Democrats party charter, to officially separate from that past debt. They need to start, fresh.
They do not want to do this, but love their shady history. Instead, they try to pass off their debt/guilt, to those whose tab has been covered. Most Republicans don't realize they are free from that debt of mental slavey due to the original master setting you free; civil war.
I can understand a generalized natural feeling of guilt for every bad thing any human has done to another, but that's really more grief than true guilt, isn't it?
The entire white guilt premise is based on being responsible for the past, based on some type of superficial connection, like skin color. It has nothing to do with personal deeds but based on a stereo type me.
If these are the rules of the blame game, why not also include the payments from the past. This way we accept guilt and credit for the past? Then we can do the math.
I look at history differently. Different times have different perspectives. You can't judge one time by another time since the variables are not the same. What we know in the future is not the same as what we knew in the past.
For example, as a teen one may take chances, such as jump off a high ledge into the dark water below. When you become old, the idea of this world scare you. It made sense when young, but not when old. If the young teen had the mind of an old man, he would choose differently. But that is not reality. The teen has a young mind and acts accordingly.
The Democrats and other revisionist historians are like the old man judging the youth, from the POV of being frail and afraid death. The youth sees immortality and takes the plunge. I can accept the youthful plunges of the past, as being due to humanity being younger, There is nothing to feel bad about, even if the old man is grouchy and tries to slap you for being young.
If the Democrats want to play the old man game, we need to accept the good with the bad of youth and then do the math. The youth will also take that plunge to rescue someone at the risk of their own lives Civil War Republicans. The old man is frozen with fear and faints in the day of adversity. To cover his shame he blames the youth for being reckless.
Exactly. So in light of this, let's dispense with "white guilt" and any need to compound it with more weirdness. :party:
Quoting wellwisher
Eternally, the young peer at the deathbed in horror.
A typical Democrat is Joe Biden. He's not young, and he is not judging you for the crimes of your ancestors. Separate out the poetry from real people so you don't end up misjudging and misinterpreting. In the same way the Republican Party attracts the dregs, the Democratic Party attracts people who are, shall we say, confused. The parties themselves are just tools for accomplishing things politically.
It gives nationalism a bad name...