Katatori-kun:

Volf:
I go back to my comment about Black America, in regards to those who's family comes from slaves, a fair number of them have some European ancestry. However I don't think that most Americans are going to call Black Americans something other than Black or African American.

That's because most African Americans still have features far more in common with black ethnicities than European ones, and because America has a rather unique and I would say very problematic relationship with American black identity that encourages isolation. To compare Jewish ethnic identity to American black identity is completely absurd.

Besides, you've completely ignored the evidence involving Jon Stewart. He's not a convert. His family name is freaking Leibowitz. If he thinks he's white, and we have evidence that shows the vast majority of his audience is white, he's white. I'm sorry if you don't like that. He's a white ethnic Jew. Get over it.

and there are Jewish people with traits that are similar to other middle Eastern groups.

As for Jon Stewart, he is one guy, he doesn't represent all of Judaism. He can be white AND Jewish because he might be mixed. As cobra_ky demonstrated[1], it is quite possible for someone to be an ethnic Jew and White, just as it is possible for someone to be a ethnic Nigerian and White(see:Mulatto). But that doesn't mean that all ethnic Jews are white, unless you consider West Asian people white.

Katatori-kun:

From the beginning, I've been quite explicit that not all Jews are white.

Not all people who follow Judaism are Semitic, but the ethnic group are Semitic, not white.

Katatori-kun:

Volf:

Katatori-kun:

From the beginning, I've been quite explicit that not all Jews are white.

Not all people who follow Judaism are Semitic, but the ethnic group are Semitic, not white.

And you're just going to throw out all the evidence so far in the thread and retreat to your arbitrary and incorrect distinction.

I'm not going to waste my time on circular tautologies.

Good, I get tired of people telling me what my ethnic identity is.

Like many things (such as the small mustache, the hiddu symbol, and the name adolf), white nationalism will never be able to separate itself from the ideas of the Nazi's and Hitler, because of the similarities in the ideas.

Note: This isn't goodwin's law because I am not saying something is evil because Hitler did it, I am saying it is going to remain eternally unpopular because of him. I never said if it was good or evil in either way.

feeqmatic:
Is there a way to motivate disenfranchised white Americans without using race baiting and hatred as the catalyst?

The easiest way to avoid race baiting is to take race out of the picture. Plain and simple. Don't try to motivate disenfranchised white Americans, just try to motivated disenfranchised Americans. The moment you bring race into the picture, you are stating that it is important to the argument, and you will never get away from all the baggage it comes with. Yes, races are different, and different races tend to be subjugated to different situations when disfranchised (urban slums and gangs versus simple transients and panhandlers), the fact is they are all disfranchised. One isn't worth helping more than the other, and they aren't mutually exclusive. There are white people in urban slums, and there are black people who are transients. We shouldn't be out to help races, we should be out to help people. To distinguish who you're going to help by race is racist, as you've decided one race is more worth helping than another when the choice really wasn't even necessary in the first place.

feeqmatic:
Is there a way to motivate disenfranchised white Americans without using race baiting and hatred as the catalyst?

Yes. With class warfare! :D

We just have to get people to stop thinking of anything and everything that isn't prostrating before the wealthy as communist.

hardlymotivated:

That anecdote reminds me of reports I heard with regard to the first and second world wars, when the British public were shocked to see the treatment of black American soldiers. I recall reading anecdotes about pub signs which read: "For British people and coloured Americans only" and stories of people sticking up for blacks when white American soldiers tried to pull the "give up your seat/back of the bus" routine but I'm afraid I can't find an authoritative source for them at the mo.

They countered racism with.....racism? *Facepalm* How wide spread was this?

Lilani:

feeqmatic:
Is there a way to motivate disenfranchised white Americans without using race baiting and hatred as the catalyst?

The easiest way to avoid race baiting is to take race out of the picture. Plain and simple. Don't try to motivate disenfranchised white Americans, just try to motivated disenfranchised Americans. The moment you bring race into the picture, you are stating that it is important to the argument, and you will never get away from all the baggage it comes with. Yes, races are different, and different races tend to be subjugated to different situations when disfranchised (urban slums and gangs versus simple transients and panhandlers), the fact is they are all disfranchised. One isn't worth helping more than the other, and they aren't mutually exclusive. There are white people in urban slums, and there are black people who are transients. We shouldn't be out to help races, we should be out to help people. To distinguish who you're going to help by race is racist, as you've decided one race is more worth helping than another when the choice really wasn't even necessary in the first place.

That sounds great...

exactly how do we do this? The problem (and one of the most significant problems with African Americans to date) is that those obvious differences cannot be easily ignored, especially given the shared history. I think there has to be a way where we acknowledge racial differences AND relegate them a non factor for the sake of mutual benefit. However, I have no idea of how to do that either.

feeqmatic:
That sounds great...

exactly how do we do this? The problem (and one of the most significant problems with African Americans to date) is that those obvious differences cannot be easily ignored, especially given the shared history. I think there has to be a way where we acknowledge racial differences AND relegate them a non factor for the sake of mutual benefit. However, I have no idea of how to do that either.

The people heading it need to address them as objective differences. While it's hard to imagine acknowledging someone is different without looking down on them is difficult to imagine through our cultural filters and history (both long ago and recent), those things do not have to be linked. Dalmatians and labradors are different breeds of dogs, you and I both know that. We can identify what makes them different, and the different flaws they have (labs tend to be a bit too energetic for playing with young children, dalmatians tend to have problems with their hips. But, knowing those differences, does that mean you somehow think it's more alright to kick dalmatians than it is to kick labradors? No, that is an entirely different line of thought. Knowing they are different breeds says absolutely nothing about whether or not one deserves to be abused.

And the same goes with races. Unfortunately, the general public opinion on race might be a bit too muddled right now with mixed thoughts and leftover hatred from our not-so-distant past (the race riots of '67 were less than 50 years ago). Perhaps once our generation, who hasn't known that sort of heated racial tension, comes of age and those old holdouts from the days of the race riots and Brown VS the Board of Education die out we will be capable of looking at things through a clearer lens. I think the best thing we can do for now is make sure we never get into a way of thought that doesn't separate the people from the problem.

I don't think nationalism can ever be considered a good thing, as I always view it as the unfortunate logical end of the patriotism path.

You have folks who's patriotism extends to thinking their country is a fine place to live, but other countries are just as good, then you have folk who think their country is better than the others, the the folk who think their country and by extension it's citizens are superior to others and right there is where the nationalism movements park their flag. And that's not a good place to be.

No offense, but White people took over like... I'd say it would be a safe estimate to say something like 60 or 70 percent of the world (Huge Portions of Africa, nearly all of the Western Hemisphere, several chunks of Asia) I don't really think we're in much of a desperate need of our own "Nation".

The fact of the matter is, I assume that even if White Nationalism ever Seperated itself from White Supremacy, the media would treat the groups as one in the same and, in the end, they may unofficially "Merge" back together.

I'm a bit sceptical towards the idea of any form of racial nationalism. I mean, the white people living in South America don't really have a lot in common with white Europeans and will have a lot more in common with mestizo's or native Americans. And what of blacks living in North America and Africa? Completely different experiences. I know this girl from Boston, England at my university who's racially East-Asian but hangs out with the English students instead of the Chinese ones because she's English born and bred. Your cultural heritage is more important than your racial one, the two are typically linked but not necessarily so.

You can make a better case for Western nationalism, given that people from Western countries do have something more substantial than skin colour in common. But Western nationalism would include black Americans, Europeans and Islamic immigrants in Europe as well as white people of course. It's all about having the shared cultural experience of growing up in a Western state which is more substantial than skin colour alone.

Olie Warr:
As a white nationalist, yeah I hope it changes but if any of u have been on Stormfront a 'nationalist' website sepratist,nazis, facist and othera are all there so no not for a while maybe but its a distant future. A lot of far-right groups have a mix of patriots to supremists for example EDL.

Blablahb:

PercyBoleyn:
White nationalism is virtually indistinguishable from white supremacy.

What a racistm bigoted and offensive thing to say. I won't be so silly as to ask for argumentation behind it.

As admitted (and perceived) white nationalists, exactly what do you expect the endgame to be in your movement. And how do you get there. Do you think that your ideas will ever have the chance to become mainstream? In my experiences with white nationalists i find that the only place where they have relevance is the internet.

When i go on to white nationalist sites i find their general inability to reason and use logic in certain areas astounding and dont see how it could ever lead to any real progress. Most of the unreasonable stuff is rooted in their white supremacist notions. All i see is them whine about what they want and what they dont like. Talk about what is going to eventually happen etc. It makes it hard to take them serious at all because you know the vast majority of them will never do anything to further their ideals. Every once and a while i see one who has some sense and does not beat the drum for general ignorance and hatred, but they are few and far between. Four years after Obama is out of office I figure their membership will drop 40%.

im honestly having a hard time getting my head around white nationalism. I really dont understand the point of it. im not trying to insult or disrespect anyone who holds the beliefs but id really like for people who are to explain why they believe this and what their ideal would be?

Blablahb:
I wasn't aware I had or needed a movement. I also had the idea that since the vast majority of people around here are white, and only a tiny minority suffer from racist self-hatred, it was already mainstream. Has been for a few thousands years too. The idea that being white is evil is really only a late 20th century invention that only had relevance untill the early 90's.

Okay, so where does the nationalism come in?

You don't need to be a "nationalist" not to believe that a given race or country is evil. The only thing you need to be a nationalist for is to believe that a given race or country can do no wrong or is always entirely in the right, which you seem to veer dangerously close to at times.

If a white supremacist told you that because you don't deny the holocaust you're a victim of white guilt and you secretly hate white people, you'd laugh in their face wouldn't you? At least I damn well hope you would. You can recognize that the existence of the holocaust as an event and the terrible, racially motivated atrocities perpetrated therein doesn't impact on anyone who doesn't participate in those behaviours and attitudes.

Yet, having watched you across many threads, whenever you're confronted with someone who doesn't believe that white culture or individual white people have always been in the right, or that any kind of overarching behavioural trends might be considered racist or prejudicial, you accuse them of peddling white guilt, you imply that they secretly hate all white people.

Well, I'm sorry to disrupt your fantasy world, but I don't hate white people. I don't hate straight people. I don't hate religious people. I don't hate rich people. I don't even hate conservatives. That doesn't mean I can't hate common behavioural trends among these groups, and unless what you're saying is either that these trends are an absolute or intrinsic part of those groups and impervious to change, or that I only hate those trends because I secretly hate the group they're most commonly associated with, how the fuck does that translate to hating anyone? It doesn't.

I mean, what the fuck.. you don't tolerate identity politics in anyone else, and that's a respectable position. Why are tolerating it in yourself?

Drawde:
Clearly, white nationalism and white supremacy are two different things. It would be unfair to deliberately confuse those two.

Your own "facts" state that they are a subset of one another. So i wouldnt call it unfair to equate the two since to the untrained eye they are fairly identical. At a minimum it is fair to say that neither white supremacy or white nationalism bode well for minorities. It still begs the original question. Can white nationalism seek only help progress white people without advocating for negative opinions/mistreatment of minorities or in some cases advocating violence?

I feel like a white progressive movement could be valuable to America, but the fear is that it would lead to an "American Renaissance" of a problematic nature if you are a minority. So its best to keep it at bay until those problems could be worked out.

I think mostly because the "White Nationalists" are saying "Hey, we dont want you in our country... go back to where you came from.", given that their homes are either the very country they are being told to leave OR an impoverished nation thats not exactly nice.

Not to mention, why would anyone want a "White nation" anyway? Seems quite a dick move to steal their natural resources, use their land to grow cash crops instead of food and then uproot and foot them with the bill and then tell them to fuck off... what happened to being a decent human being?!

Katatori-kun:

Volf:

Katatori-kun:

And you're just going to throw out all the evidence so far in the thread and retreat to your arbitrary and incorrect distinction.

I'm not going to waste my time on circular tautologies.

Good, I get tired of people telling me what my ethnic identity is.

What an odd thing to say. I never told you what your ethnic identity is.

...I thought we were done with this conversation, no? My point has been that ethnic-Jews are Semitic, not European. Yes there are people who are mixed, and yes there are converts, but "pure" ethnic-Jews are Semitic. As for religious Jews, it various from them being ethnic to them being mixed/converts.

Drawde:
Clearly, white nationalism and white supremacy are two different things. It would be unfair to deliberately confuse those two.

Unfair to whom?

White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people.

White separatism and white supremacism are subgroups within white nationalism.

Therefore, both white separatism and white supremacism are also political ideologies which advocate a racial definition of national identity for white people. Being a member of species sapiens by definition means being in genus homo.

Now, if Katori-Kun was making the allegation that white nationalists want to kill all non-whites, if that was the criteria of similarity we were looking for, then by all means wheel out the above as proof that he is wrong.

However, that's not what's objectionable about white separatism. That's not why the two are associated or lumped together. what's objectionable about both is the assumption common to all forms of white nationalism that race has intrinsic meaning separate from interpolation, that whites should only live with other whites because "the white race" has certain intrinsic characteristics which are relative to those possessed by other races.

If you believe that, you are by definition a racist. Pointing out that there are people who want to subordinate or kill all non-white people and you're not like them doesn't save you from being a racist. If I go out and date-rape someone, I don't get to walk away by saying "I'm not a rapist because I'm totally different from an assault rapist or a child molestor, and it's so unfair you put us in the same category". Whether you appear less of a dick for being a white separatist is down to individual judgement, but by definition you're still a racist, and you're still going to be objectionable to anyone who finds racism offensive.

So once again, who are we being unfair to by lumping white supremacists and white separatists together insofar as they are both racists?

Of course, that's not what you're arguing against. You're arguing against an imaginary straw man who somehow believes that all racist people are produced in a factory somewhere to strict quality control standards. No, noone has said that. However, if you can't see the relevant similarities in this case then I question your judgement.

Katatori-kun:

Volf:
...I thought we were done with this conversation, no?

I came back to stop you from misrepresenting my post. I never made a claim as to your ethnic group.

My point has been that ethnic-Jews are Semitic, not European.

Yes, yes, I've read your circular-logic point several times now, and I know exactly what your argument is. The problem is your argument hinges on an assumption that there is a singular Jewish ethnic group- a claim that is false.

There is a single group, other groups are converts or mixed.

Helmholtz Watson:

As for Jon Stewart, he is one guy, he doesn't represent all of Judaism. He can be white AND Jewish because he might be mixed. As cobra_ky demonstrated[1], it is quite possible for someone to be an ethnic Jew and White, just as it is possible for someone to be a ethnic Nigerian and White(see:Mulatto). But that doesn't mean that all ethnic Jews are white, unless you consider West Asian people white.

My dad has been mistaken for Itzhak Perlman on multiple occasions, so that's a fairly reasonable assumption.

Nickolai77:
You can make a better case for Western nationalism, given that people from Western countries do have something more substantial than skin colour in common. But Western nationalism would include black Americans, Europeans and Islamic immigrants in Europe as well as white people of course. It's all about having the shared cultural experience of growing up in a Western state which is more substantial than skin colour alone.

To be patriotic about a unit of government, an economic unit, or shared geography seems very odd to me. A nation is a people, not a government or a piece of land.