This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
User jewdefender has been banned. Discussing with other mods right now.
A few of us have high certainty that they are a troll of some sort. We just haven't been willing to ban, because it is not 100% certainty.
But they are also single issue posting and copy and pasted a comment from elsewhere to originally pass off as their own writing.
Edit: mod consensus is that this will stay as a permaban
Edit2: adding comment quote for posterity
More options
Context Copy link
You know I’ve been waiting for a good time to talk about this, but I am usually hesitant because by now these discussions don’t ever lead anywhere and no one’s opinion is ever changed in any meaningful way, but I guess now is as good a time as ever.
At one point I would have considered myself a white nationalist, although only in the way a nineteen-year-old university student would consider themselves a Marxist. Just as I was reaching my twenties I got caught up in the counter-cultural alt-right sphere in 2016, and adopted many of the worldviews that were congruent with the political atmosphere of the time, including Ultra-nationalism, Antisemitism, and extreme social conservatism.
It is important to note that one does not become an ultranationalist following a genuine reading of Evola but comes about almost exclusively as a reaction to the failures, dishonesty, and excesses of modern progressivism. It is almost a meme at this point to talk about Anti-white propaganda that is constantly espoused from the left and influences their legislative policies and cultural creations in every aspect of society. It is difficult to ignore this when every social message from every institution is categorically opposed to your very existence in a very genuine way. It is not ironic or subtle, and it is very difficult to take criticism of racial prejudice seriously when the culture at large only considers discrimination legitimate when against ‘approved’ groups.
This is coupled with a domestic policy that also reflects those values, and actively promotes immigration programs that are intrinsically designed to weaken the amount of social and economic power that the majority holds. It is not fallacious to say that western governments are actively supporting causes and ideologies that are inherently anti-white. It is always in the back of people’s minds that their societies have gotten successively worse over the last twenty years and in the minds of the radical right this is correlated with the rise of multiculturalism. We have been so ingrained with the idea that it is morally wrong to even* conceive* of a nation strictly composed of a white majority that It is no surprise that it leads to strong political reactions such as white nationalism.
While I could go on infinitely about the failures of modern liberalism, the point of this thread chain is about why white nationalism is not a viable solution to the greater social trends we are currently seeing, or specifically why I became disillusioned with white nationalism.
The greatest problem I had with entire community is one of unspoken beliefs. Much like Marxists (who have legitimate grievances with neo-liberal capitalism, ones that they are correct in pointing out can not last without complete disaster), they hold beliefs internally that are completely malevolent. White nationalism is centered on a goal of a homogeneous nation that is composed of an ethnically white majority. While I do not consider this inherently immoral (much like how I wouldn’t consider nation such as Japan, India, or China's homogeneity as immoral), the reality is that due to modern immigration policies over the last thirty years, western nations hold a large number of visible minorities. Underneath many of the public facades of ultra-nationalists there lies a reality that is invisible under the surface. Ask a white nationalist what they would do to minorities who would refuse to leave the nations in which they have built a foundation for the future, and they will give you ambiguous solutions that never really sound satisfying to either you or them. They will deny this to no end, but If given complete political authority, they would do many of the things that leftists would accuse them of doing. In order to reach their preferred racial demographic goals, they would have no qualms in deporting, imprisoning, and ultimately murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions of people given the opportunity. Much like the far left in which they criticize, their public personas do not actually reflect the values in which they hold in their hearts, and the practical reality of their governance would result in a large amount of innocent bloodshed, which I do consider immoral.
White nationalism does not have an adequate plan for the future and their proposed solutions to problems will not simply vanish if given political control. Since I have explained that white nationalists come about primarily as a reaction to the excess of progressive ideology, they don’t really have a thought-out plan for the future, only the destruction of what is currently politically popular. Destroying a current political establishment, and actually governing are two completely different things, and they are often in sharp contrast with one another. It would not surprise me if they achieved political power that it would not last particularly long, because the modern world does not share the political realities of the interwar period. They seem to have this idea that the only thing stopping western nations from their previous economic and technological superiority is simply the racial makeup of the country. Now while it can be strongly argued that the social benefits of homogeneity would lead to better educational and economic outcomes, by no means is this guaranteed. Modern nation states are in constant competition with one another in all kinds of ways that are not obvious on the surface. They seem to have this opinion regarding almost all facets of society, that simply making western nations homogeneous will solve almost all of their political problems. This is not apparent to me. There are many serious issues that demographics don’t seem to solve. The birthrate for example, would seemingly skyrocket the moment western nations are ethnically homogeneous, never stopping to notice that these problems are worst within nations that are ethnically homogeneous, such as China, Korea, or Japan. The modern world has become far too complicated for such simple solutions, and in many ways White nationalist’s delusional world is only a reality within their minds.
This is not to say that modern liberal democracy is inherently better, as I would prefer almost anything to what we currently have. I believe modern progressivism to be a political and cultural dead end, and one that white nationalists correctly diagnose as being inevitable to die, either due to political revolt or societal collapse, given a long enough time frame. The dissident right has emerged as an evolution to this type of ideology and is a little more realistic in their goals and slightly more aware of the moral problems that come about as a result. White nationalism is an equal dead end, at least the fantasy of it that the adherents hold to in their heads.
This seems to me a quite bad refutation of white nationalism. The meat of your objection is that wignats would have to use violence to achieve their policy goals, but apparently you've never had a frustrating conversation with a libertarian. That's true for every political movement ever. Whether we are talking about ethnic cleansing of hispanics or civil rights laws for blacks or motor vehicle registration for your SUV, the enforcement of policy ultimately rests on an escalating sequence of consequences that end in non-compliants being gunned down by police in the street.
Yes, making an ethnostate would require reprisals on people who don't want to obey. This is equally true of patrolling borders. China, Korea, and Japan are not "naturally" homogenous today. They are homogenous because they have continued to enforce a threat of violence against border crossers who do not meet their preferences.
This post could be rewritten to condemn any political movement that is not in power, save ancaps.
The best refutation of white nationalism is fact that there is no such thing as "white nation", that all the hundreds of millions of pale skinned people all over the world (white nationalists themselves vigorously disagree all the time on the basic issue who exactly should count as "white") do not see themselves as "one nation" and do not see any stranger with the same skin color as their brothers or sisters.
White nationalists have to build their nation out of nothing, have to organize, educate and agitate on unprecendted worldwide scale, have to persuade, for example, Balkan and Eastern European peoples to put down their mutual grievances and see each other as fellow white comrades.
Do you see any force capable of such monumental task? I don't.
I remember reading a couple of discussions online following the first Black Panther movie and the first season of Bob Hearts Abishola, respectively, making a parallel point about "black" — that things like "Pan-Africanism" have always been primarily phenomena of "diaspora" blacks (Erik Killmonger, Gloria Tyler), while Africans have their own particular national and sub-national identities, rivalries, and enmities.
(This parallel also provides a good rejoinder to the 'if you, a "white" American, want to live in a "white ethnostate," just go back to Europe, bro' argument — how's Liberia been doing?)
But note that while the above militates against a global "black" identity, it doesn't remove the salience of such an identity in the American context; hence the increasing ADoS discourse. There's no "black nation," but there's quite arguably a "black American nation." Ethnogenesis is a thing.
And the parallel goes for white Americans… to a degree. For various reasons, including, but not limited to, the "break" from the "old country" and its culture being less extreme for (mostly, to varying degrees) willing immigrants versus slaves brought in chains. The "melting pot" did a lot, but so did "Albion's Seed," as it were.
So there isn't even one "white American nation" — there's at least two, and they're increasingly hostile. A lot of times, when a certain type of "white person" goes on about how awful "white people" are, they don't mean themselves, they mean the other tribe. As I've put it to people before, I'm not a "white nationalist," but I am, perhaps, a Borderer nationalist. And "build[ing] their nation out of nothing… to organize, educate and agitate" on that much smaller and more homogenous scale would indeed be an easier task than "convincing Balkan and Eastern European peoples to put down their mutual grievances and see each other as fellow white comrades" — consider, for example, why quite a number of "white Americans" with no historical, familial, or geographic ties to the South will display a Confederate flag?
Except, I, for one, don't particularly see trying to carve out a Borderer ethnostate as much of a path forward either, even if the "tribes" are increasingly segregating geographically. Instead, I see the best path forward for my people to lie outside the (increasingly outdated) Westphalian nation-state model.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree. My objection is not that they would use violence to achieve their goals, but that mass violence is *inherent *to their political goals. I understand violence is necessary for any political power to hold on to their positions of authority, but it's not simply a matter of political subjugation.
The consequences for non-whites who subjugate themselves to a ruling class of White Nationalists would be identical to those who don't, because it is not their consent that is contentious, but their existence itself. The use of violence is therefore used not as a contingency for non-compliance, but as a tool used towards those who don't have the desired characteristics. There would not be 'reprisals,' because that would imply causation.
Yes, I agree, and I would prefer the West to have the same type of policies, but the reality is that they don't. The question now remains, how you would reverse the effects of mass immigration without the overwhelming use of political violence? Comparing the use of force for the displacement or extermination of millions of ethnic minorities to registering your SUV is extremely disingenuous.
Kuwait deported a quarter of their population in a week during the aftermath of the Gulf War with little to no bloodshed - I’m sure any Western country could easily deport a single digit percentage of its population with less fuss than Covid restrictions especially if that population used state benefits at a higher rate than the native population.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not their existence that is contentious, it is their location. They are free to exist elsewhere, and if they choose to stay they can be forcibly removed, as Pakistan deported hundreds of thousands of Afghans. It's absurd to say that the very existence of those Afghans is in contention, it is their location that is the problem and it was their location, not existence, that was corrected.
I particularly hate this use of "existence." It's manipulative and dishonest.
Yes, in theory, but In practice that's nearly identical. I find the distinction between existence/location to be marginal at best. Just in the same way I don't wish for all mice to be eradicated off the earth, I would kill all of them that are in my house, for the very same reason that I don't like their location.
Exactly my point. Think about the practical implementation of these policies. Force them where and how? Tell them all to pack their bags? Send them to other nations that don't want them? What if these nations refuse to take them in? What if these minorities refuse under all circumstances? What about the large proportion of minorities that are second or third generation immigrants who do not have a place to go if displaced? What starts out simple in theory quickly becomes murderous in practice.
The perpetual counterpoints I bring up to these sorts of points, and the equation of country breakup and ethnic sorting/relocation with "Balkanization":
The post-WWII relocations of ethnic Germans
The "Velvet Divorce" of Czechoslovakia
More options
Context Copy link
Probably back over the Mexican border, since the vast majority of them came in through that avenue. As for how, the same way the state does everything else: with the threat of uniformed men with guns.
That would be first, and easiest, solution and was actually proposed by a Republican candidate for President in my lifetime. He referred to it as self-deportation.
Yes, exactly.
We lean on them, the same way we do to get our way all the way around the world in a thousand different ways. Starting with sanctions, probably, or withholding of aid. Or we simply move the people across the border and present it as a fait accompli.
It depends on how intermixed they are, first of all, but anyone who has been ethnically distinct for three generations in America gets little sympathy from me and can be deported to where their grandfathers came from.
You keep raising these logistical issues as if they are the moral issues but they simply aren't. Removing them is a logistical issue, and it can be resolved using all of the regular tools we already have, once the decision has been made to do so.
I don't get the reticence. How has any state gotten anything accomplished at any time in history? By deciding to do it and marshalling their resources to the task. This is no different.
Your example is specific to a certain type of Mexican immigration in the United States. Whether you're looking at something logistically or morally are completely different issues. There are 10.5 million Mexicans currently in the United States, which is 5x larger than the largest standing army in the world. How would you do that logistically without causing an all out civil conflict? Once again I'm arguing that whatever way you think that will play out in theory will not play out that way in practice. Even if you want to pretend that it's not a moral position, it absolutely is, and you will have to morally justify that to a large portion of the United States population that will not be in favour of such drastic policies and will risk losing a large portion of your support to the immigrants you are attempting to displace.
I'm not even American btw, my thoughts on this are based on Canada where I live who don't have such easily displacable immigrants. How would we get rid of millions of immigrants from places like China and India? Send them down to the United States border? Have a centralized agency responsible for the displacement of all non-whites over a 10 million km radius?
Operation Wetback led to the departure of over a million Mexicans from the United States, using less than a thousand federal agents. Most of them weren't even arrested; hundreds of thousands simply fled the US to avoid arrest and formal deportation proceedings. And that was in an era with a much weaker state apparatus and no significant tracking capabilities, at least none comparable to what we have now, let alone the means and ability to punish domestic sponsors of illegal migrants. Modern Western states are vastly powerful in ways most people cannot even imagine; what cripples them is democratic restrictions on exercising their powers. I don't think the illegals hanging around outside Lowe's are going to take up arms against the government if they hear that the US is deporting all Mexicans or Central Americans - like their forebears, the odds are that they'll simply pack up and leave, or they'll hang around hoping they're lucky enough to avoid getting swept up. "Civil conflict" is an absolutely minor and irrelevant possibility. It's not a question of logistical ability - it's a question of political will.
Yes, ultimately this is the only real obstacle to effective border security and demographic policies, which is why I have little sympathy for liberals who wring their hands over the election of right-wing anti-immigration politicians in Europe - if your position is that democracy is necessarily a racial suicide pact, you should not be surprised if people emerge who are not as beholden to democracy as you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not to tread old ground here, but I once again find myself curious about the tricky edge case of the old-stock American black.
(I'll take the former Georgia colonial territory circa the 1770s if you're offering it though.)
Not that the partition of India was clean and easy, but we're living in a world where such a partition happened last century. The model is there, so mostly what I'm bemoaning is a lack of imagination.
From the (Mississippi) river to the sea*?
*Ocean
More options
Context Copy link
Is that even an edge case? Seems like a pretty central example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I hate to state the obvious, but just because Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin both used "violence" to achieve their policy goals does not mean I can't prefer Carter for killing fewer people and pursuing better policies than Stalin.
/u/TheBookOfAllan is making the entirely defensible claim that the cost of deporting/imprisoning/killing millions of Mexicans is incredibly high compared to typical policy goals and compared to the benefits. It's not helpful to respond that it's no different than enforcing vehicle registration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can't escape from the problem of low-effort posting by stroking everyone's ego. (I don't think most people on this board are actually all that smart, we just have diverse interests and collectively can come up with some interesting conversations.) This is not the board that is going to enforce Liberal Orthodoxy and provide apologetics for why something on the Internet is Problematic.
If you read something that seems incorrect to you, but you are having trouble putting your finger on it, then explain what exactly (with your own words) you think is most convincing about the article and then give reasons why you think it might be wrong. (link to the article, do not copy/paste it.) Maybe it does not correlate with your personal experience. Maybe if you accept the argument you need to throw out some other component of your mental model of the world.
Or, if you cannot give a reason for it being wrong, defend it. Steelman it as best you can. That is the only way to get a strong rebuttal.
More options
Context Copy link
If you can't offer a rebuttal does that mean that you agree? In that case why are you not a 'white nationalist'? Why do you care so much about white nationalists when they are such a fringe movement at this time?
More options
Context Copy link
Discussions of white nationalism do not always feel the need to mention rejecting violence. Just go to 4chan, you will see plenty of people calling to forcibly expel and/or kill non-whites.
White nationalists who are a bit more peaceful-minded probably often feel the need to distance themselves from that crowd and also distance themselves from the common public stereotypes of what white nationalists are like. And many of the white nationalists who are violence-minded feel the need to pretend to be peaceful-minded in order to argue successfully "in polite company".
One problem with many (though far from all) white nationalists is that that they both believe that whites have certain characteristics that make them superior to other races and also believe that whites should act more like those other races act. It is a bit contradictory to have the mindset of "we are better than those savages but you know what, we should act more like they do when it comes to matters of race and immigration!"
Liberalism is largely a white invention, I would say one of the greatest of all white inventions. It is great not just by ideological standards, but also by pragmatic standards. I cannot imagine whites having had the enormous success that they have had for the last 500 years had they not become liberal and cosmopolitan. Capitalism itself is liberal by nature, it is the social mode of cosmopolitan traders, not of ethnic chauvinists.
Today's liberal white cosmopolitanism opens itself to all races, but I think that one can trace its roots to the nature of the cosmopolitan community of white Christian Europe hundreds of years ago, when an upper class white would freely travel from one European capital to another, having more in common with the upper-class white men of other countries than he had with the lower classes of his own country. Not that there weren't similar things in Asia and the Muslim world, but Europeans really took that ball and ran with it. They coupled the cosmopolitanism with the scientific/technological revolution, and each of the two amplified the benefits of the other.
If one takes the long view, one can argue that nationalism was actually a brief aberration in European history, one which lasted roughly from the French Revolution until the end of World War 2. The more common social pattern of white people, going back to the the times of Greek trader colonies, Hellenization, ancient Rome, and so on, was a far-flung cosmopolitan imperial pattern, rather than ethnic separatism.
One paradox of white nationalism is that to cast aside liberalism is to cast aside one of the greatest achievements that white people have ever made.
Would you say that the invention of liberalism would make one people 'supreme'?
Conversely, isn't it a bit contradictory to have the mindset of "we are better than those savages who did not invent liberalism and live violent, backward lives filled with sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, but you know what, we should let them all in and then complain when they act exactly like they did before we invited them in"?
Oh and one more "we are better than those savages who do not believe in liberalism (white nationalists), therefore we should ban them from participating in all the liberal institutions".
This converse you are talking about is not the position of the liberal consensus that white nationalism is up against, though; rather, it sounds like some form of straw "anti-white nationalism". Consensus liberals reject the idea that liberalism or other desirable qualities have anything to do with racial or genetic background at all, and instead consider them entirely cultural, and moreover believe in the missionary quality/persuasiveness of their own viewpoint. Admitting people from illiberal cultures into their midst of therefore good, as it will make it likely that those people or their descendants will convert to liberalism; also, shunning white nationalists is good, because these people carry some rare set of memes that evidently conveys resistance to conversion despite exposure to liberal ideas.
Compare how medieval Christianity, despite being convinced of its superiority, travelled around the world and sought to deepen its relationship with pagan peoples (whether by trade or colonialism), effectively bringing them into its cultural fold, while at the same time treating internal witches and heretics harshly.
I think you're referring to Roman Catholicism, not Christianity which was able to live along with Muslims, Jews, pagans in relative peace for centuries and still to this day in the Middle-East.
Liberalism is a product of Roman Catholicism, or perhaps the new version of it, in which propagating the imperial ideology is more important than each individual's actual salvation/well-being.
Is that the actual liberal position on white nationalism?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Modern Liberalism is not an achievement of white people and is infused with racist authoritarian far leftism and the legacy and influece of marxists but also of black and Jewish identitarians and groups that identified with their sex and other minorities. The anti-tribalism of liberals is a falsity since they promote racist policies and entrench hate speech, while pathologilizing all opposition.
The reality is that the enlightnement in addition to promoting good things, also promoted the Jacobin mentality. There is a legacy of modernity of far left extremism that is negative and destructive from the french revolution to today and which also enabled and sided and used by foreign ultranationalists.
Also, while it preexisted the enlightenment, the enlightenment produced also nationalism as an ideology. It really hasn't just produced only one thing.
Things associated with liberalism can be good when they coexist with conservative and native nationalist principles. And that has been the historical west. A society that enforced conservative moral mores but also that coexisted with some liberal mores. That promoted its own native interests but also there was an internationalist ideal.
Liberalism absent the restraints and influence of conservatism and pro native nationalism with the double standards of the left, becomes the far left. And that is the agenda that modern liberalism promotes.
An agenda of treating white people and other groups as pathological and other groups as groups that can do no wrong and whose tribalism should remain entrenched and not questioned. Part of the hostility to white identitarianism has to do to its opposition to excessive tribalism for non white and its opposition to anti white racism. And part of it also has to do with a nation destroying agenda that destroys something good, oppresses good people and results in the Trotskyist mentality of the destroyers who believe that they the people of revolution can do no wrong.
No, the people of this mentality are not "goodguys" as they believe, but the opposite.
So in conclusion, liberalism is flawed, but also deeply erroded by far leftism and today's liberalism is an ideology that isn't consistent about antitribalism but concern trolls and marxist and liberal nationalism and tribalism for left wing associated groups and the progressive stack is the dominant aspect of modern liberalism in both rhetoric and deed. It is an act of siding with this to pretend otherwise when only criticism can save modern liberalism from itself. The legacy that made the west great has not been liberalism but the coexistence of liberalism, or rather aspects of liberalism with other ideologies like conservatism, religious morality, national consciousness. However, the mentality of purity spiral in the liberal and left wing direction lead to utterly terrible ideologies getting influence which are destroying the west in a manner that we see play out. Indeed becoming South Africa is an obvious end point of modern liberalism. Although things could progress even worse than that. To make the west great again, removing far left extremism from institutions and fixing the dominant ideology to not include the extreme elements of liberalism is the way to go.
One of the key problems of modern liberalism is the fanatical purity spiral idea in favor of its own legacy and intolerance to what is valuable outside liberalism that liberalism can lack. Even more so when talking about modern liberalism which really has been erroded too much by far left and is inconsistent and lacks even the virtues of liberalism. Modern liberalism is not an ideology that promotes equality under the law, neutrality, objectivity, and certainly while it can be flawed, to an extend some lack of tribalism can be good (but too much is bad). Modern liberalism does not do that. It is a dishonest ideology which is about being racist for your favorite tribes but pretending to be antiracist and concern trolling your ethnic outgroup. To the extend it affects people to have this preference at the expense of their own group this is to such an extreme degree to be fair to consider it to be promoting the treasonous mentality. Its a destructive ideology for the civilizations that are cursed by fate to be ruled by it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously, because propaganda is dominated by people like you who are very hostile against white people. The people targeted by Stalinist trials but ended up murdered also in majority of cases professed their love of the great Stalin, admitted their errors but still their final fate didn't change. Maybe they saved some relatives from murder or spared themselves torture. But Stalin was not worthy of love and themselves not worthy of hatred for being persecuted by his regime.
The reality is that all nationalists are capable of violence and all groups deserve rights and people to promote them else other nationalists will go extreme and screw them over. In the current situation where there are no pro white organisations with significant institutional influence but there are plenty of anti white pro other groups organizations, the excess of nationalism we have is not of the white variety. Hence, the obsession about the first over the later is for the same reasons that when a trans antiwhite shooter shot Christian kids at a school, the Biden administration talked about how they stand with the trans community but not the Christian community. Its all about the racist sympathies of those in control of institutions. Its for the same reason that when it has been discussed or from being underdiscussed many people in this community are unaware of the various genocides of ethnic groups commited by the communists.
There isn't a unique evil to white people and their tribalism. Right now a different form of nationalism is the one committing the most violence. Moreover white people who aren't white nationalist but are unhinged nationalist for different groups are right now contributing more to violence than white nationalists.
Beyond the issue of promoting the interests (valid or excessive) of a group, there is also the issue of communities rights to existence, their own traditions, etc, etc. People deserve their religious and ethnic communities to not be persecuted and part of the richness of humanity does lie significantly in its different ethnic groups and their different ways of being. Ironically the cultural marxist idea of destroying whites to end racism is the more homogenizing vision against world diversity. Although it won't suceed and even if it would it wouldn't work and there will be conflict among non white different ethnic groups that colonize western countries. The cultural revolution that destroys many ethnic group's culture and existence is evil for what it does to them in particular and unjust, and obviously humanity as a whole is deprived. No more white people and destroying their culture, and shitting on their ancestors and civilization is also an evil against humanity as a whole.
And of course in addition to nationalists of the more obvious variety, marxist nationalists and even marxist fanatics against nationalism have their own legacy of blood. But the pressure isn't towards this ideology and its adherents for the mountains of skulls and unfortunately so. Marxist ideology can suck so much that it can share with it the more extreme elements of nationalism.
What are those? But extreme antinationalism at expense of the hated outgroup. Like the nazis considered Poles, Greeks, Russians, and yes Jews too to be a threat to them, so does George Soros in accordance to his son, obviously ADL, obviously you, consider European Christians a threat to minorities.
The extremist antinationalist who sees as evil a community of people existing in their homeland and the religous, or moderate nations that want to continue to exist is a case of the first tribalist for antitribalism being far worse extremists. People who try like Trotsky to collectivize individualism and really hate ethnic groups just for existing are incredibly dangerous and have an enormous legacy of blood. They are also oppressive totalitarians beyond just the threat of death. Beyond just ethnic groups, we should also be concerned about the threat of these fanatics to right wingers too. Like a majority of French for example want France to remain France and oppose mass migration. The movement you are part of sees this as white supremacy and nazism too. Many millions of decent people, just for wanting their ethnic and religious communities to continue existing and opposing self genocide are seen as iredeemably evil under the inanely evil antifa framework.
The hatred based on ideology against nationalists and religious people and against those who aren't far left by the the far left has such enormous legacy of blood, and repression, that it requires also more recognition as a great evil, than just the ethnic persecution although they are directly related. To the extend people think that they aren't persecuting ethnic groups (they are) but just people who hold an ideology, well your ideology persecuting perspective has destroyed a huge number of good people and has shown it self incapable of restraint.
The hateful oppressive societies that are created by this mix, demonize particular ethnic groups in this case white ethnic groups, and lead to violence, toleration of crime and also a more slavery like society with less rights and freedoms for the outgroup. Certainly no freedom of speech but also no freedom to a community and self respect but imposition of humiliation, cruelty and very low status. Plus such policies as in south africa of extreme racism against whites and abadonment of standards, tolerating criminality, leads to societal decline and collapse.
The less violent inducing ideological mix would be to tolerate white tribalism, but not promote white ultranationalism, excessive rights for whites at expense non whites and also to limit in the same manner the tribalism for non white groups. Yes all nationalist ideologies can go too far (so there is a threat of violence by all of them but also by people who identify as antinationalist humanitarian types but their far left ideology has a greater legacy of cruelty than most nationalist ones) and ironically one of the ways they do this is to not recognize any rights for other ethnic groups. Going too little can result in self hatred and identifying with excessive nationalism for other groups as it is happening right now.
Nationalism is also related with not only bad things in its excess but opposing oppressive empires and creating free national state democracies where ethnic groups are able to live freely. The multiethnic (and multireligious) situation is often a situation where some ethnic or religious groups dominate this multiethnic state impose a second class citizen status on the others. Cultural marxists are people who do have enormous sympathies and enormous antipathies. If you do have a multiethnic society, allowing no group rights and identification with their own interest for the majority/pluralirty ethnic group designated as threat of everyone else, is how you create a racist supremacist caste system, and oppress the majority/plurality too.
Self respect and defending your legitimate rights is a good thing. Promote reciprocity and the idea that where one groups rights end another's begin. Wreck and not tolerate the antiwhite ultranationalist ideology where white groups can do no right and non white groups can do no wrong. There is a sweet spot in the level of native tribalism for white ethnic groups which includes white tribalism for either groups like white americans in a more direct manner or as a supranational more broader civilizational group identity.
But I do think the primary ethnic identity for say the Europeans should be their nation but that national identity does relate to being a european. Amway there is a sweet spot level of respecting the tribalism of white people for non whites too. Non whites should also respect and share the idea that a) white groups have certain national group rights b) non white groups have certain national group rights.
This idea can exist for different groups as the prevalent idea if we push for it to exist. And it did exist more so in the past, but has been eroded by far left antiwhite racists and ethnic tribalist for certain ethnic groups (like in your case the Jews with their organizations being quite important at that) who have excess tribalism for themselves and allow too little group rights for their hated white Christian outgroup ethnic groups. It still exists to some extend in certain european countries and of course among non europeans for themselves.
And this can coexist with the existing framework of international justice which does exist and there are laws for this and should be taken more seriously. Mass migration for example violates the rights of the native peoples. And really same applies to the general cultural marxist agenda which does include always extreme nationalists of the non white variety to the extend their nationalism targets the mutually hated outgroup.
Is changing the pervasive ideology of societies possible? Obviously. Although some societies today are already closer to what I advocate than what you advocate.
Like society can tolerate and promote the current ideological mix, it can promote a different and saner one too. But this would require both people who can't be reasoned to what are their tribal motivations and pretend to be motivated by more universal goals (they really are treating certain groups as utilitalian monsters and others as not deserving jack shit) stop being entrenched in institutions and their ideology not tolerated. Then there the other people who have more genuinely absorbed the false belief that they are virtuous and can do no wrong (the Trotskyist idea that revolutionaries can do no wrong) and demonize others to facilitate this to accept the bitter pill that they have been some of the worst racists of history who have done to their ethnic outgroup, sometimes including their own ethnic group by ancestry, a great evil.
More options
Context Copy link
Rhymes with "Yahtzee". The last notable time white nationalists gained power did not go so well, and it is generally agreed that it did not go so well, so people with opinions that resemble that generally want to clarify that their viewpoints do not end up in that generally-agreed-to-be-bad place.
As to why the same isn't true of e.g. communists? Honestly I have no clue, but I think that indicates a problem with the communists.
I mean, in part because we're much closer, politically, to communists than we are nazis. The idea of uplifting the poor, equality for all, the will of the people, etc, are things that modern americans and communists share. Whereas the nobility of war, a duty to serve the state and its leader, the superior races pushing out the inferior, jews being bad, etc, aren't something we share. Communism is noble but misguided in practice, naziism is evil.
This means communism 'goes down easier' than fascism, so people have a much stronger visceral reaction to fascism. The fascist then has to compensate for that, e.g. by rejecting violence
More options
Context Copy link
A suggestion from a video interview with Tom Holland on his book "Dominion" was that the Communists were equal-opportunity murderers; they didn't pick you based on skin colour or perceived ethnicity, while the Nazis had a very clear plan in place about that. So Communists are seen as slightly less awful.
Then working backwards from that, Communists don't feel the need to disavow violence because (1) well it's revolution, comrade, can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and (2) hey, at least we're not Nazis!
They picked you based on perceived social class instead.
Indeed, but they didn't care if you were white, black, brown, yellow or red as they sent you to die in the Gulag! So they're just a teeny bit not as bad as the Nazis! So they don't have to disavow violence, comrade!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The nazis murdered a lot of europeans who they painted as threats, so they were much more German supremacists than white nationalists. Those european countries targeted were actually run for the most part by european nationalists who did support their people's continued existence, that is peoples who were white. Most victims of the nazis were in some regard european nationalists. So you need to be very careful here, as it becomes ghoulish and genuinely offensive to use nazism that harmed so many Europeans and their nations to double down on harming Europeans.
Let me provide a comparison. The Japanese imperialists who were Japanese supremacists also promoted the idea of pan-Asianism and that they were those fit to lead the Asian race against European colonialism. But of course they also were rather racist against particular Asian groups and commited nasty attrocities. And the existence of the Japanese imperialists does not justify screwing Asians from their homeland because the Japanese have done atrocities to both Asian and also the whites who fought them in WW2. It was also better that the Japanese were not taught to hate thier nation as was done to the Germans. Japan after WW2 respected it self and avoided attrocities against non Japanese. Win - Win. That they did not engage and "face" with their WW2 history is probably better than the German alternative. Like South Africa's "truth and reconciliation" what we get is neither truth nor reconciliation.
The nazi card being used against Europeans who suffered under both Bolshevism, Nazism and now cultural marxism is diabolical.
Those who fought the nazis fought for their people against an enemy, not for them and their descendants to be treated as nazis which is extremely immoral and an enormous betrayal.
One could claim that extreme antinationalism towards groups painted as threat that disallows their existence is the pervasively dangerous ideology instead and one you are helping perpetuate. Not respecting other nations having a homeland. This genocidal imperialism then as an ideology comes in many forms.
If anything, the more dominant white nationalist ideology has been in the anglo sphere.
Nationalists concerned about their native groups prosperity have ruled over many countries including european ones, including at the time of nazis and opposed them, and afterwards. In europe post WW2 has worked well actually with modern european nationalists who opposed migration having countries that avoided both the violence and hatred at expense of their people.
They are nationalist enough for this ideology not to be tolerated by the modern liberal left and people like Soros and similar.
So moderate nationalism in general that has an element of respecting the golden rule works well and a necessary aspect of the only sane internationalism that worked. Nationalism that is greedy and does not respect the rights of others doesn't work well for humanity. But the nationalism of this form that is more dominant today is not white nationalism, but nationalism of groups of the progressive stack.
Indeed even in the USA in part decades there have existed people who identified with their white group who even thought southerners were too tough on the blacks.
What is going is that far leftist extremists and racist tribalists for other groups did take over certain institutions.
And the right which did have some more hardcore views (hell the national review supported seggregation originally) adopted increasingly their framework.
Now, nationalism as I have argued can go too far and there is that element too, so I do think due to this fact and yes history too, it would have made sense to put limits on white nationalism, just like it should be doen for non white nationalism and the marxist nationalism that has infected liberalism is an example of this extremism. In fact, perhaps the movements that are moderate on nationalism do not actually call themselves nationalist. That might be one way to see it.
But we don't have a movement that is about just opposing extremism here. If we had that, I would be more in line to respect it, although such a movement should focus today much more about other extremisms than white nationalism like for one example the black nationalism not only of blacks but even promoted by non black liberals. Which relates to the attempt to promote afrocentrism and promote narratives about black romans, black English in history and so on.
This agenda was imposed by those who marched in institutions and by force. Its not a mystery why there isn't objection to it, its because the far left promotes deliberately the association of nazism with anything that isn't far leftism and pathologizes opposition to the far left as extremism. Even though plenty of those who oppose it aren't extremists and even supposed extremists can and did oppose bad far left extremism too.
Those who have compromised too far with certain racist ethnic lobbies and the far left, do not represent a moderate reasonable center. A moderate reasonable center will include space for white tribalism, but would also put limits to it, and would do likewise with other tribalisms.
It would also definitely focus to punish the "nazis/slavery/confederacy/colonialism/holocaust happened so your group have no national rights" ideology and those perpetuating it, and focus to promote a history that is more nuanced rather than one sided blame game against particular ethnic groups or the political right. There is in history enough facts against this falsity. The milking of history to paint certain ethnic groups as eternal oppressors is the kind of thing that is the most potent poison to our discourse.
So I would teach first about this movement and how it is a bad one, and how we should not allow them manipulate us by respecting their act of milking history as a respectable endeavor. However I would also frame nazism, slavery as bad things. WW2, slavery, etc are not the only things of history that matter and in fact the movements that have milked them are far more relevant to us today than them and remain actual entrenched factions that keep doing this trick. It only works if we accept their attempt to milk history and use it as a winning card against their outgroup. So we should care far more about the activists promoting this than any of the groups that operated 80 years ago.
We should definitely make the "more holocaust/slavery/left wing victimhood narratives" a taboo. We need much less of that in fact. So yeah, I think the way to fix the damage done by these movements and reach behavior that is closer to the sweet spot is intolerance to the "truth and reconciliation" supporters. The influence of shaming native nationalism for Europeans has been so much and the influence of respecting the rights of others so pervasive among say groups like the French who a) oppose what happened in France with mass migration, and believe France should stop it. b) still oppose fascism, that the end result of removing those who perpetuate these narratives from influence would certainly be more moderate than what we got now.
Edit: I do think that pan whiteism and Pan asianism and universalism imperialist can bring actually genocides against groups. But the threat should not be utterly focused on those outside, as is convenient for anti-europeans. There are ethnic differences among broader groups too that rise the question of how those who aspire to lead the whole group would behave. Communist genocides do relate to the elite there finding certain ethnic groups to be obstacles and finding their nationalism a threat to the project, and the general antinationalist extremism. In the case of nazis their idea of being the leaders of Europe was not incompatible with extreme racism against certain europeans and Japanese with Asians against Asians So that is another lesson to take from WW2 that doesn't fit the narrative of the one sided promoters of particular guilt. But it is an important one. This idea that you should unite either the world or a race under your leadership can of course lead to such problems.
The people who claim the aspersion of lack of tribalism (whether universally or towards people of their own race) can find it easier to mistreat other ethnic groups under their rule than they claim. The wise issue of national self determination arises in WW2 as a relevant. I recall reading a quote by Eisenhower who thought that lack of homogeneity in Europe was related to WW2 as a conflict by the way.
I mean this is a way to see things that isn't popular among hardcore white nationalists neither, but it is actually one of the insights one can get from WW2 if they don't see it from particular partisan glasses. Now, what about the EU? Well the EU can do attrocities out of a more cultural marxist lens, which still relates to an elite who don't identify with an ethnic group mistreating it due to seeing them as threat, but now for muslims, or blacks or Jews, or for the tribe of "antitribalists". As a union of European nations, if lead by moderate nationalists who respect their general heritage but also their specific nations, and don't have a predatory mentality towards the worl it is more likely to work well for everyone than by the cultural marxists who mistreat Europeans and have a problem of antieuropean racism. If it lead by groups like the historical nazis, attrocities against certain Europeans and their nations would be a likely scenario. So this is an example of taking correct lessons of history, instead of being manipulated by one of the guilty factions such as the cultural marxists.
One of the ways to break the spell of "nazism milking" used by anti european racists, is to realize how much harm nazis did to europeans as well. But of course that harm was 80 years ago, and others are the more primary perpetrators of harm afterwards. And the victory of this racist anti european faction can feed into a certain grass is greener effects by some looking at ww2 history.
That still doesn't change the utterly obscene nature of using the nazis who murdered so many europeans and had an authoritarian culturally genocidal agenda (they explicitly were against nationalism by said nations) towards many non german european nations, as the way to support cultural genocide, extinction and racism against europeans today. We need to punish pathologizing moderate nationalism that is so tied to the legitimate rights of existence and non mistreatment of ethnic groups and the nazi comparisons are deserving of ire most of all.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it’s power dynamics. The Nazis lost badly and had no institutional support after the war. So they were held to account by their enemies and every crime was exposed and recounted in mass media. Nazis were tried publicly for their crimes. Communism has institutional support in government, in media, and in the academy. They never really lost. They faced no public reckoning for their crimes. I think if you reverse that, have the communists lose badly in a war, lose institutional support, and the leadership face a media backlash exposing everything that went wrong, they’d have the same need to distance themselves from Soviet era communism.
This seems plausible to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you going to link the article this is from? It appears to be a comment on this article.
Edit: clarity
Just like the last alt used to (“motteposter”). I think he decided to move on to the next one, he isn’t maintaining kayfabe, this is far from his usual pearl-clutching progressive persona. Witness this, DR doubters, @coffee_enjoyer , @FirmWeird , so at least your priors will be in the right place when the next game begins.
edit: Might want to rethink what you thought you knew more generally. If you fell for this, it could be that most of the arguments you thought you won decisively was just one of your own letting you win to boost your confidence. Your ideology should pay for deceiving you and others by projecting this fake image.
DR doubters? Dissident right? I mentioned previously that it was an open question, and it was given that people were actually talking about it and discussing it. Here he just straightforwardly includes "we" when talking about white nationalists which really gives the game away and closes the question, but it isn't like this is particularly surprising. The main argument I had in my head against him being a troll was just that he was particularly bad at it (if I was going to troll under the name "JewDefender" I'd just be an incredibly obnoxious pro-Israel partisan with insanely obvious double standards, and who makes arguments with big glaring flaws that strengthen the WN cause when defeated).
I'm not rethinking what I know generally because I followed the rules and mores on this forum about assuming hidden intentions on the part of other people. You also don't seem to know what my ideology is or who counts as "one of my own" - I'm only an antisemite in the sense that I don't support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and think that a lot of the things they've done are utterly heinous (white phosphorus usage in civilian areas is something I will very consistently condemn). That said, most of my arguments on here tend to be on the topics of Trump, environmentalism and EROEI more than anything else.
If you think I won any arguments because the other side let me win to boost my confidence, please let me know and point these arguments out - I don't have my profile locked down, you're free to go looking through my history to find instances of this happening... and I'm going to expect you to actually do so if you're making an accusation like that.
More options
Context Copy link
“You were potentially deceived by a poster trying to manipulate the forum, therefore it was your ideology that deceived you” is an impressively silly thought.
I don’t know what’s going on with the OP poster. The world’s worst crypto- white supremacist? The opposite, attempting to get the topic banned? Someone doing “intelligence gathering” on users who agree with this or that? Whatever it is, it’s obviously annoying. Maybe mods should start using AI to check posting styles and ban the next alts.
He did it for your ideology, so yes, your ideology did it to you. If you valued the truth more than your ideology, you’d make it pay. But more important to me than the relative worth of random ideologies is: if we all counted his dishonesty as a demerit against his WN ideology, he would finally shut the fuck up (since his motivation is to make it look good).
But you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater - this approach is bad and leads to bad outcomes even when people aren't actively fucking with it. You're giving random bad faith actors an opening that grants them astonishing amount of power and influence over what you believe.
If you disagree, let me know - "fuckduck9000defender" seems to be an available account, and if you think people acting like shitheads in support of one particular ideology is a mark against that ideology, you're going to be changing your mind on everything real soon.
More options
Context Copy link
This itself opens up an obvious attack vector.
We’ll cross that vector when we reach that plane. He has successfully promoted his ideology by abusing the sub’s charity so far. We are way out of balance, too trusting, and he has been defecting at zero cost. Of course if you let in a defector in a theoretically curated always-cooperate club he’s going to make bank. We don’t need to condemn his ideology all equally and unequivocally for it, it would be enough if we imposed enough costs that he would be unsure whether his actions help or harm his ideology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is non-sequitur and nonsensical. Ideologies are true or false completely independent of any random bad actors on random forums. Someone “doing something for your ideology” does not negate an ideology, not even 0.0001% of its validity or lack thereof.
And what makes you think he isn’t anticipating this?
So far he has only succeeded in annoying the user base, making them more reluctant to post and engage in anything WN-related. If he were actually invested in promoting WN he would immediately stop posting and just upvote SS or something.
I'm not talking about some alabaman WN who’s never heard of him, I'm talking about you, reader of this forum. Your view is shaped, in this case corrupted, by what you read here.
Because it isn’t what happened the previous eight thousand times he did this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where are the people arguing against (white) nationalism?
There seems to be a general refusal to ever defend multiculturalism as the Western world spends billions refereeing border disputes between people one can hardly tell apart.
You don’t see many naive defenses of multiculturalism or calling anything to the left of stalin, nazi, here, but one side’s specific argument being absent or even proven incorrect, does not make white nationalism, as advocated by DR-aligned posters, correct. You see a lot of hypocrisy type arguments here ‘if oppressed identity politics are legitimate, then so are white/oppressor identity politics’, which, yeah, I more or less agree with. But after that, they start to resort to the same postmodern tricks as their opposition, calling whites’ ‘false consciousness’ the result of manipulation by (((elites))), or of some inherent mysterious quality of whiteness, which somehow makes them both flawed and superior.
Anyway that’s not the point: if your worldview, whatever it might be, has been corrupted by deception, then when the deception is uncovered, your worldview should be corrected, even over-corrected (to account for as yet undiscovered deceptions), back to an original pristine state.
What does that even mean? What is the original pristine state?
I don't think anybody actually formulates a worldview based on null hypothesis or something like 'out of all Y arguments, X have been disproved, therefore I only retain as true Z until disproven'.
What do you even mean by deception? Is the socratic method deception?
I have met plenty of white nationalists but I don't think I've met a supremacist. While some will argue that white people are superior due to X, Y, Z, they usually concede that they are not flawless, that they are currently as a people on the backfoot of history, a shadow of their former glory. Hence the need to organize as a group 'white people' or whatever other denomination they may give themselves.
They usually look to the past (RETVRN), to some previous state of existence of 'white people' as a group that was superior to what it is now. Plenty of them are also able to acknowledge virtue in members of other groups, whether they call them 'honorary aryans' or 'one of the good ones', or even acknowledge an entire group (ie Jared Taylor is fluent in Japanese and has cordial discussions with Japanese people who agree with him that huwyte people should be able to live in homogeneous groups if they so choose).
It's kind of a flavor thing, some people like vanilla over chocolate, does not mean vanilla or chocolate are objectively superior.
What do you think we are we talking about? "jewdefender"'s lies. He manufactured hundreds of fake, low-quality debates here that were designed to look like the WN side won. If you bought into this, took this as evidence of the quality of WN arguments, you have been deceived. He also tricked you into reading way more WN lit than you would have if he’d been honest. The original pristine state is when your opinions come from observing real debates and reading stuff organically. We all heavily rely on the honesty of others to form an accurate view of the world. Socratic questioning does not impair this process, JD's lies do.
He didn't really manufacture anything as from what I recall he never really bothered replying to comments. Somebody who only drops links or excerpts of other people's opinions with one line of 'what do you guys think of this literally-who-WN I just fished, aren't WN bad?' strikes me as prime 'low effort' posting. As far as I know, the guy hasn't even expressed a single opinion. Just noise. What's interesting is when people who put a little bit of effort reacted to the material, but there's not much to go from.
Where are the real debates including white nationalists? Where are the lie-free sources?
It seems to me that democracy is about caring about what the billionaires who own the media tell us to care about, and to rubberstamp these billionaires' point-of-views.
There is no pristine state in such an environment.
I saw him get into an extended conversation with SecureSignals. You can't verify that though, because he was deleting all his comments after a day or so. Not something typically done by low-effort but well-intentioned posters, if you ask me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it would help if we could identify users with a private profile and habitual post deleters without having to click into their profile.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link