Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

White Nationalism

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have always been epathetic towards the milder white nationalists. They've always gotten the wrap for their loud mouth sub group of white supremacists. Kind of ruins the entire effort.

But if we stop and think, I'm sure a lot libertarians and anarchists (I will group you all together as libertarians, just to save space, forgive me) can agree with many of the points that make up the foundation of white nationalism.

1) Why should a white only college be considered racist, but a black only college not?

Wouldn't libertarians support the belief that either a) no one should complain about either all white nor all black colleges, as they are free to setup as they wish, or b) that both should be regarded as equally discriminative, and so should be discouraged?

2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race. Meaning that you shouldn't be more likely to get a scholarship, just because you are black, or get a job just because you are a women, or be elected, just because you are hispanic.

Isn't that something that libertarians would agree with?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:03:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I might catch flak for this, but I really don't see why the entire group of white nationalism is getting the blame for the small number of white supremacists, when they are two different ideologies (though they have similarities).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:15:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
I have always been epathetic towards the milder white nationalists. They've always gotten the wrap for their loud mouth sub group of white supremacists. Kind of ruins the entire effort.

But if we stop and think, I'm sure a lot libertarians and anarchists (I will group you all together as libertarians, just to save space, forgive me) can agree with many of the points that make up the foundation of white nationalism.

1) Why should a white only college be considered racist, but a black only college not?
No need. Both are immoral.


Wouldn't libertarians support the belief that either a) no one should complain about either all white nor all black colleges, as they are free to setup as they wish
No one should complain TO A GOVERNMENT about private racist colleges. They are free to complain to the college and criticize it, whatever the bent of its racism. And "White nationalism" suggests that there's nothing private about their goals anyway, just like with Black nationalism.


2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race.
Yes, but that's not what White Nationalism means. If they tell you those are their goals, they are either stupid for calling themselves White Nationalists, or they are lying to you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:17:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Frankly, "White supremacy" is a more appropriate term for a movement toward private racist institutions. "White nationalism" has the coercive implications right there under "nation."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:31:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:17:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Frankly, "White supremacy" is a more appropriate term for a movement toward private racist institutions. "White nationalism" has the coercive implications right there under "nation."

white supremacy has a desire to establish whites as supreme, in both private institutions, and (as an ultimate goal) as government policy.

The original term of "white nationalism" doesn't really fit with the actual ideaologies of "nationalism" as at the time, it was mostly added as a word to generate feelings of pride (much like Nazi took up the "national socialist" for the image, even though they weren't socialist) which they felt for being white. Namely that one should not feel sorry because they are white and so should not punish themselves for being white (this usually is a pendelum swing to the other end, rather than simple moderation).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:36:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It sounds like feminism in the regard that everyone insists what it really means is equality, but in practice is nothing like it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:36:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
It sounds like feminism in the regard that everyone insists what it really means is equality, but in practice is nothing like it.

Well, you get a few extremists that like to corrupt an idea. Just like with feminism, the extreme feminists are nothing like to orginials that literally wanted nothing more than equal rights.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:43:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:40:51 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:36:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
It sounds like feminism in the regard that everyone insists what it really means is equality, but in practice is nothing like it.

Well, you get a few extremists that like to corrupt an idea. Just like with feminism, the extreme feminists are nothing like to orginials that literally wanted nothing more than equal rights.

But just like feminism, why call it that if what you reall want is equality? White nationalist does not scream equality to me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:33:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:31:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:17:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Frankly, "White supremacy" is a more appropriate term for a movement toward private racist institutions. "White nationalism" has the coercive implications right there under "nation."

white supremacy has a desire to establish whites as supreme, in both private institutions, and (as an ultimate goal) as government policy.
Not necessarily. White supremacy has a wide range of political views. And people who believe whites are truly superior have no need to make it law, their logic dictates that libertarianism is sufficient for whites to become superior.


The original term of "white nationalism" doesn't really fit with the actual ideaologies of "nationalism" as at the time, it was mostly added as a word to generate feelings of pride (much like Nazi took up the "national socialist" for the image, even though they weren't socialist)
They were socialist. The government had absolute authority to do whatever it wanted to the economy.

which they felt for being white.
It is profoundly stupid to feel pride for a skin color.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:38:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Indeed, the term "White supremacy" started getting used by people who wanted to free the slaves. Mainly to prevent mixing of blood and whatnot.

They also wanted to ship the blacks back to Africa, which isn't libertarian, but it's a whole lot more so than apartheid.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:39:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
if you really want to define white nationalism as the assertion that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race thats cool but its a misnomer... it has nothing to do with being white or with being a nationalist. my guess would be that anyone calling themselves a "white nationalist" and claiming to hold those beliefs is using it as a front for racism that they won't admit to lol. nothing to do with white supremacy, it just doesn't make any sense to make it racial if your specifically protesting against the importance of race.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:43:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:33:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:31:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:17:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Frankly, "White supremacy" is a more appropriate term for a movement toward private racist institutions. "White nationalism" has the coercive implications right there under "nation."

white supremacy has a desire to establish whites as supreme, in both private institutions, and (as an ultimate goal) as government policy.
Not necessarily. White supremacy has a wide range of political views. And people who believe whites are truly superior have no need to make it law, their logic dictates that libertarianism is sufficient for whites to become superior.

They'd eventually turn to government policy, or anarchy, to where they can exact out their agendas against others without fear of punishment from a government. But, yes, it doesn't have to be inherently through the government. They just try to get the government out of their way from enforcing their "supremacy," either by removing the government entirely, or by taking it over.



The original term of "white nationalism" doesn't really fit with the actual ideaologies of "nationalism" as at the time, it was mostly added as a word to generate feelings of pride (much like Nazi took up the "national socialist" for the image, even though they weren't socialist)
They were socialist. The government had absolute authority to do whatever it wanted to the economy.

That doesn't define socialism. That defines an overpowering government (common in totalitarian dicatorships).


which they felt for being white.
It is profoundly stupid to feel pride for a skin color.
Besides disagreeing with you, that is besides the point. Whether you think it is stupid or not does not change what it is.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:47:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:39:54 PM, belle wrote:
if you really want to define white nationalism as the assertion that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race thats cool but its a misnomer... it has nothing to do with being white or with being a nationalist. my guess would be that anyone calling themselves a "white nationalist" and claiming to hold those beliefs is using it as a front for racism that they won't admit to lol. nothing to do with white supremacy, it just doesn't make any sense to make it racial if your specifically protesting against the importance of race.

You had black nationalists and black panthers. Many of whom were fighting for equal rights for blacks (at least claimed to, imo, they simply fought for more "rights" whether those rights were equal or not).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:50:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:43:51 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:33:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:31:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:17:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Frankly, "White supremacy" is a more appropriate term for a movement toward private racist institutions. "White nationalism" has the coercive implications right there under "nation."

white supremacy has a desire to establish whites as supreme, in both private institutions, and (as an ultimate goal) as government policy.
Not necessarily. White supremacy has a wide range of political views. And people who believe whites are truly superior have no need to make it law, their logic dictates that libertarianism is sufficient for whites to become superior.

They'd eventually turn to government policy, or anarchy, to where they can exact out their agendas against others without fear of punishment from a government.
You make this assertion of force against all people using the term "White supremacy," but not against "White nationalists", despite the fact that the latter have a forcible instrument in their name and the form don't? On what grounds?



The original term of "white nationalism" doesn't really fit with the actual ideaologies of "nationalism" as at the time, it was mostly added as a word to generate feelings of pride (much like Nazi took up the "national socialist" for the image, even though they weren't socialist)
They were socialist. The government had absolute authority to do whatever it wanted to the economy.

That doesn't define socialism. That defines an overpowering government (common in totalitarian dicatorships).
Well what defines socialism then?



which they felt for being white.
It is profoundly stupid to feel pride for a skin color.
Besides disagreeing with you, that is besides the point. Whether you think it is stupid or not does not change what it is.
Which is something that shouldn't be defended by a rational person, unless a forcible actor is trying to stop them from "feeling pride", and then only defended against force, not defended intellectually.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:51:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:47:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:39:54 PM, belle wrote:
if you really want to define white nationalism as the assertion that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race thats cool but its a misnomer... it has nothing to do with being white or with being a nationalist. my guess would be that anyone calling themselves a "white nationalist" and claiming to hold those beliefs is using it as a front for racism that they won't admit to lol. nothing to do with white supremacy, it just doesn't make any sense to make it racial if your specifically protesting against the importance of race.

You had black nationalists and black panthers. Many of whom were fighting for equal rights for blacks (at least claimed to, imo, they simply fought for more "rights" whether those rights were equal or not).

they weren't claiming that race shouldn't matter though, they were claiming that they needed more rights as you said. they had a legitimate claim to that, but outside the context of widespread systematic (and legal) oppression, it doesn't make any sense. sure certain AA policies mildly discriminate against white people, but its nothing compared to how bad it was in the past against other minorities. i don't think we need white or black nationalists at this stage in the game...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:23:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
I have always been epathetic towards the milder white nationalists. They've always gotten the wrap for their loud mouth sub group of white supremacists. Kind of ruins the entire effort.


I have no sympathy for people who think that skin color brings people together no matter what color they happen to prefer. It has no bearing on anything that actually matters. Why should I think differently about any person or group of people based on where their ancestors came from? Don't say that's not what white nationalism is because if I don't care what race someone is I'm clearly not a white nationalist.

But if we stop and think, I'm sure a lot libertarians and anarchists (I will group you all together as libertarians, just to save space, forgive me) can agree with many of the points that make up the foundation of white nationalism.

1) Why should a white only college be considered racist, but a black only college not?


I don't dispute this. Both are racist.

Wouldn't libertarians support the belief that either a) no one should complain about either all white nor all black colleges, as they are free to setup as they wish, or b) that both should be regarded as equally discriminative, and so should be discouraged?


I would choose both a and b. I would challenge such establishments as racists institutions that espouse collectivism and subjugate the character and thought of a human being to his/her racial background. I would not use force or support anyone who used force in order to stop them.

2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race. Meaning that you shouldn't be more likely to get a scholarship, just because you are black, or get a job just because you are a women, or be elected, just because you are hispanic.


That's not pro-white, it's just not anti-white. Negating a racist claim isn't an affirmation of the opposite. I oppose affirmative actions because I oppose racism. Opposing racism against whites does not make you pro-white. I oppose racism against blacks, does that make me a black nationalist?

Isn't that something that libertarians would agree with?

Yeah, I agree with most of what you said. I'm still against white nationalism.
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:07:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
I have always been epathetic towards the milder white nationalists. They've always gotten the wrap for their loud mouth sub group of white supremacists. Kind of ruins the entire effort.

But if we stop and think, I'm sure a lot libertarians and anarchists (I will group you all together as libertarians, just to save space, forgive me) can agree with many of the points that make up the foundation of white nationalism.

1) Why should a white only college be considered racist, but a black only college not?

Wouldn't libertarians support the belief that either a) no one should complain about either all white nor all black colleges, as they are free to setup as they wish, or b) that both should be regarded as equally discriminative, and so should be discouraged?

2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race. Meaning that you shouldn't be more likely to get a scholarship, just because you are black, or get a job just because you are a women, or be elected, just because you are hispanic.

Isn't that something that libertarians would agree with?

While I do agree with you to some extent here's some info:
1.There is no Black Only schools
2.Most Historically black colleges where made before the civil rights movements during a time when Blacks couldn't go to "White Only" schools
3.A White only college is racist and so is a Black only one ,but if you look at "1" you get my point
4.Poor people usually = not well educated ,therefore uneducated people tend to be suspicious of people and cultures they are not use too. Also it depends on personal experiences , if you grew up in a poor black neighborhood then the "rich" whites look better and that makes blacks defensive. People should look past that but uneducated people don't know better. Look at the Jews, dumb people love to blame the Jews because they(idk if this is right or not) usually have more money.

I'm Half white Half black and a tad bit Irish or Scottish(not sure)
Though in the USA I will be considered only Black.
It's goanna be a while before countries stops judging each other.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:10:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no Black Only schools
I hope there aren't any English only schools either or they have failed you, good sir. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:16:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 2:10:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no Black Only schools
I hope there aren't any English only schools either or they have failed you, good sir. ^_^

Dammit!
Well, I accept my burn good sir.
And to reply in a very childish manner : "Your mom"
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:20:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
I have always been epathetic towards the milder white nationalists. They've always gotten the wrap for their loud mouth sub group of white supremacists. Kind of ruins the entire effort.

But if we stop and think, I'm sure a lot libertarians and anarchists (I will group you all together as libertarians, just to save space, forgive me) can agree with many of the points that make up the foundation of white nationalism.

1) Why should a white only college be considered racist, but a black only college not?

Wouldn't libertarians support the belief that either a) no one should complain about either all white nor all black colleges, as they are free to setup as they wish, or b) that both should be regarded as equally discriminative, and so should be discouraged?

2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race. Meaning that you shouldn't be more likely to get a scholarship, just because you are black, or get a job just because you are a women, or be elected, just because you are hispanic.

Isn't that something that libertarians would agree with?

I'm a very hard right person (as the name suggests) but have some libertarian beliefs such as the ones that you mentioned above. In my school that I attend, whenever an African American male told everyone that he prefers an African American college during a speech he gave us, no one said anything! Now, tell me...do you think this would have gone un-noticed if a European American male said the same thing about a European American college?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 12:13:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:23:50 PM, Grape wrote:
At 3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race. Meaning that you shouldn't be more likely to get a scholarship, just because you are black, or get a job just because you are a women, or be elected, just because you are hispanic.


That's not pro-white, it's just not anti-white. Negating a racist claim isn't an affirmation of the opposite. I oppose affirmative actions because I oppose racism. Opposing racism against whites does not make you pro-white. I oppose racism against blacks, does that make me a black nationalist?

No, I'm not saying that people who are against white racism are white nationalists.

Just like being for lower taxes doesn't automatically make you a libertarian, but that is something that they support.

What I find, is that many white nationalists suffer from a pendulm swing. When they see something that appears racists towards whites, rather than trying to push it to a balanced center, they end up pushing towards the other end (I guess hoping that if they go further than center, that will drag the rest of the population just a bit towards center).

Not saying that I agree with the pendulm swings, but I understand where it is coming from.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Robikan
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 12:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:58:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
I have always been epathetic towards the milder white nationalists. They've always gotten the wrap for their loud mouth sub group of white supremacists. Kind of ruins the entire effort.


What exactly are "milder white nationalists"? Quiet racists? I realize that there are very real issues regarding multiculturalism (depending on where one lives, of course), but thinking that race itself is a valid measure of value is ridiculously ignorant at best and terribly hateful at worst.

But if we stop and think, I'm sure a lot libertarians and anarchists (I will group you all together as libertarians, just to save space, forgive me) can agree with many of the points that make up the foundation of white nationalism.


1) Why should a white only college be considered racist, but a black only college not?


I see them as entirely equal.

Wouldn't libertarians support the belief that either a) no one should complain about either all white nor all black colleges, as they are free to setup as they wish, or b) that both should be regarded as equally discriminative, and so should be discouraged?

2) Shouldn't everyone be treated equal, no special privileges for anyone, regardless of race. Meaning that you shouldn't be more likely to get a scholarship, just because you are black, or get a job just because you are a women, or be elected, just because you are hispanic.

Isn't that something that libertarians would agree with?

That's something that more than just libertarians would agree with, but that is not what white nationalism espouses, so it's completely irrelevant.