America - The Official Thread

[samurai8juice]

These protests are mostly between white people, who for the most part, have nothing better to do with their lives. The people who make-up both Antifa and the Alt-Right (or White Nationalists, or the KKK, or whatever you want to call them) look like complete losers.

Are there normal people (peaceful protesters) on the white nationalists' side, that are there just so the statue doesn't get ripped down? Sure.

Are there normal people (peaceful protesters) on Antifa/Socialists/Fascists side that just want the statue to get torn down? Sure.

But you can't play it off as if one side has the moral high ground, because neither side does. Both sides have a recent history of attacking peaceful protesters for no reason other than disagreeing. And by purposefully misinforming the people you're throwing fuel on the fire.

Hopefully the mainstream media sees an alternative to fighting the alt-right, than getting behind Antifa. And hopefully Trump comes to his wits and completely disassociates himself from the alt-right.

EDIT: On the whole Irish thing:

The Irish, when they came here, were treated like low-life savages, who stole our jobs and who invaded our cities with their Catholic ways, who formed their own communities and their own schools.

We can't forget that while the KKK hated black people, they also hated anyone who wasn't a WASP. Americans at the time seemed to regard the Irish as low as the freedmen.

We also can't forget that while the Northerners were against slavery in the South, the Southerners claimed slavery in the North.

 

[BobK]

But every single white nationalist should nonetheless be despised, because they are white nationalists.
.

So you're advocating entire groups of people should be despised because their opinions differ from yours.

Let's try "But every single Catholic should nonetheless be despised, because they are Catholics."

Or, "But every single BLM member should nonetheless be despised, because they are BLM members."

Don't you see that you are every bit as bigoted as they are?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you're advocating entire groups of people because their opinions differ from yours.

Let's try "But every single Catholic should nonetheless be despised, because they are Catholics."

Or, "But every single BLM member should nonetheless be despised, because they are BLM members."

Don't you see that you are every bit as bigoted as they are?

I see what you're saying but surely the very "white nationalist" definition heavily taints anyone who associates with it. You can't be a white nationalist without believing in white nationalism, right?

 

[Dotini]

I see what you're saying but surely the very "white nationalist" definition heavily taints anyone who associates with it. You can't be a white nationalist without believing in white nationalism, right?

True - unless you're schizophrenic. But can you associate with nationalism and whites without being a "white nationalist"? I think so. Nationalism is probably the #1 organizing principle on planet Earth, and the most organized and productive people are quite often white. But you become "tainted" anytime you associate with anything whatever the self-appointed arbiters of public morality declare to be taboo. Once that was drug-using, homosexual socialist atheists. But now the shoe is on the other foot. Always beware the tyranny of the majority.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But can you associate with nationalism and whites without being a "white nationalist"? I think so.

You can be white and a nationalist but joining the words to make the phrase "white nationalism" generally means something quite specific. I think it's that specific "white nationalism" that we're talking about.

 

[Dotini]

You can be white and a nationalist but joining the words to make the phrase "white nationalism" generally means something quite specific. I think it's that specific "white nationalism" that we're talking about.

I think you should be very, very careful in maintaining a healthy respect for the diverse opinions of mankind, and not carelessly blurring or conflating things together in case you stir up conflict, hatred and violence. Of course, sometimes stirring up conflict quite understandably serves to advance your personal or national agenda. In which case you will thoroughly deserve the violence and hatred your speech stirs up. Personally, I do not associate with neo-Nazis or one-world revolutionaries. Both are crazies.

Now, you will excuse me for a few pleasant hours as I'm off to the Renaissance Faire.

 

[UKMikey]

My problem with the equation of capital letter White Nationalism with members of the Roman Catholic church and BLM is their apparently differing entry requirements. As far as I know, the Catholics will let anybody in (even people who don't want to join as seen in the era of the Conquistadors). I've also seen white people chanting "black lives matter" in videos of demonstrations.

By contrast it looks to me like you have to be a certain shade of pink to join the White Nationalism movement, especially where it seems to advocate the eradication of those who, like me, aren't fortunate enough to be that shade. This is probably why, although I deplore the more extreme aspects of the other two movements, it's the good ol' boys I feel I have most to fear from. It's difficult to retain a healthy respect for folks who want to wipe me and people like me from the face of the earth.

 

[McLaren]

My problem with the equation of capital letter White Nationalism with members of the Roman Catholic church and BLM is their apparently differing entry requirements. As far as I know, the Catholics will let anybody in (even people who don't want to join as seen in the era of the Conquistadors). I've also seen white people chanting "black lives matter" in videos of demonstrations.

By contrast it looks to me like you have to be a certain shade of pink to join the White Nationalism movement, especially where it seems to advocate the eradication of those who, like me, aren't fortunate enough to be that shade. This is probably while although I deplore the more extreme aspects of the other two movements it's the good ol' boys I feel I have most to fear from. It's difficult to retain a healthy respect for folks who want to wipe me and people like me from the face of the earth.

That's still grouping all of them together under 1 claim, the very thing you Leftists tell people not to do to Muslims for the exact same fears.

That's a white supremacist, which is considered a sub-group of white nationalism. There is white separatism that seeks a white-only state; they do not necessarily believe they are better than you or want to kill you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's still grouping all of them together under 1 claim, the very thing you Leftists tell people not to do to Muslims for the exact same fears.

Nope. If you grouped white people in that way, fair enough. Grouping white nationalists that way seems little different from grouping ISIS members the same way. The former is a subset of white people while the latter is a subset of Muslims.

That's a white supremacist, which is considered a sub-group of white nationalism. There is white separatism that seeks a white-only state; they do not necessarily believe they are better than you or want to kill you.

You're confused, I think. There's little (and often no) difference between a white nationalist and a white separatist.

 

[SagarisGTB]

I never said they haven't suffered.

I said they excuse their remarks by claiming the suffering of their ancestors allows to make said remarks, and believe white people in particular, have not suffered, so they can not make similar comments. In fact, they like to blanket all white people from making any comments by proclaiming, "White Privilege" despite the fact several white people have suffered through the similar events, mainly with police encounters. Those people get brushed off; they don't count, they still have "white privilege".

White privilege isn't immunity from hardship or injustice, it's the social privilege of avoiding a lifetime of subtle racism and a much lower likelihood of experiencing a racism-motivated attack or negative life-changing event.

And "they" don't blanket all white people from making any comments, instead "they" respond harshly to those that deny, distract, misrepresent (as many in this thread have a habit of doing) or pull attention to themselves when speaking of their movement because all of the previously mentioned undermine or distract from the cause.

This is backtracking a bit, and proclaiming, "Well, they weren't classified as white back then, so it's not the same". They were white, and they came in the same numbers as German immigrants, yet the Germans didn't face anywhere the backlash for differences.

The point of the matter is that regardless if the Irish were discriminated against for being "non-white" or despite being considered "white", they weren't discriminated for being "white". That's likely the point of this uncited BLM claim of yours: "white people" in the United States have never had to endure widespread discrimination for being perceived as "white".

Regardless, this particular thread about Irish discrimination is becoming increasingly pedantic and tangential. Irish Americans don't have a claim to continued injustice in the USA.

So you're advocating entire groups of people because their opinions differ from yours.

Let's try "But every single Catholic should nonetheless be despised, because they are Catholics."

Or, "But every single BLM member should nonetheless be despised, because they are BLM members."

Don't you see that you are every bit as bigoted as they are?

This is probably the most ****ed up post I've ever had the displeasure of reading on gtplanet.

That's still grouping all of them together under 1 claim, the very thing you Leftists tell people not to do to Muslims for the exact same fears.

That's a white supremacist, which is considered a sub-group of white nationalism. There is white separatism that seeks a white-only state; they do not necessarily believe they are better than you or want to kill you.

As @TenEightyOne mentioned, there is little if any difference between the two as, in my experience, White Nationalists are simply White Supremacists dressing themselves in a slightly cleaner wrapper.

 

[Northstar]

a much lower likelihood of experiencing a racism-motivated attack or life-changing event.

Any of those stat thingies to back this up?

 

[McLaren]

White privilege isn't immunity from hardship or injustice, it's the social privilege of avoiding a lifetime of subtle racism and a much lower likelihood of experiencing a racism-motivated attack or negative life-changing event.

No, it isn't. It's a statement given to whites that believes white people will be given an advantage over minority because of the color of their skin. Ignore Affirmative Action.

And "they" don't blanket all white people from making any comments, instead "they" respond harshly to those that deny, distract, misrepresent (as many in this thread have a habit of doing) or pull attention to themselves when speaking of their movement because all of the previously mentioned undermine or distract from the cause.

You keep believing that; it's not true. White Privilege is a term coined to automatically disarm any argument from a white person that doesn't concede with their own. They have a term for their own that don't agree with BLM; Uncle Toms.

The point of the matter is that regardless if the Irish were discriminated against for being "non-white" or despite being considered "white", they weren't discriminated for being "white". That's likely the point of this uncited BLM claim of yours: "white people" in the United States have never had to endure widespread discrimination for being perceived as "white".

Whether for being white or not is irrelevant. BLM likes to argue white people have never faced discrimination in this country; the Irish have.

Regardless, this particular thread about Irish discrimination is becoming increasingly pedantic and tangential. Irish Americans don't have a claim to continued injustice in the USA.

In that case, BLM can no longer argue about slavery & oppression of their ancestors to support their cause; it no longer happens in this country.

As @TenEightyOne mentioned, there is little if any difference between the two as, in my experience, White Nationalists are simply White Supremacists dressing themselves in a slightly cleaner wrapper.

It doesn't matter whatever your opinion is, the fact is not all White Nationalists are White Supremacists. You made a claim they all want to end your life, yet of course, you'll never be able to prove it. Just another fake statement b/c they're in the news right now; a year ago, you wouldn't have given second thought to these people like the rest of Americans.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Any of those stat thingies to back this up?

Unfortunately, there is very little data available that can aid to prove or disprove racial prejudice in US social systems, including the hot-button justice system.

There have been some studies conducted, but they all suffer from data issues. The Fryer working paper based on police data from Houston, Texas concludes, after employing controls, that black people are 21% more likely to be recipients of non-lethal force during stops, but that there is no bias in shooting rate (conditional on a gun being drawn). This paper suffers from a small sample size, large standard errors, data exclusively from police reports and the scope doesn't address any data on rate of stops. A study by Cody Ross (2015) concludes that unarmed black people are 3.5 times for likely to be shot by police that unarmed white people, but this study suffers from similar data issues and data being exclusively derived from civilian statements. Gelman, Fagan, and Kiss (2007) finds that black people (and Hispanics) are stopped by police more often than white people in NYC (with controls for population, crime rate and precinct), but this time the scope is limited to NYC.

It doesn't matter whatever your opinion is, the fact is not all White Nationalists are White Supremacists.

Even if they weren't, their platform is still very much racist. Not that much better at all.

You made a claim they all want to end your life, yet of course, you'll never be able to prove it. Just another fake statement b/c they're in the news right now; a year ago, you wouldn't have given second thought to these people like the rest of Americans.

I didn't make any such claim.

As for the rest of what you posted, I'll pass on addressing it. I've had enough straw men and red herrings. Have a good life.

 

[McLaren]

I didn't make any such claim.

My mistake; it was another member.

As for the rest of what you posted, I'll pass on addressing it. I've had enough straw men and red herrings. Have a good life.

You're no where near at a point to talk as if you've been straight forward or presented a complete & honest discussion, either.

Edited* Leaving the discussion at this instead.


Dallas held an Anti-White Supremacy rally tonight that has turned into an Anti-Police protest now as it as ended. Dallas PD is 55% white, 25% black, 17% latino according to a 2011 file.

 

[UKMikey]

It doesn't matter whatever your opinion is

I'm not sure why I should believe your uncorroborated statement over @TenEightyOne's sourced Wikipedia link.

 

[McLaren]

I'm not sure why I should believe your uncorroborated statement over @TenEightyOne's sourced Wikipedia link.

Wow, look! It says the exact same thing I said.

That's a white supremacist, which is considered a sub-group of white nationalism. There is white separatism that seeks a white-only state; they do not necessarily believe they are better than you or want to kill you.

White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism. Separatists seek a white-only state; supremacists believe that white people are superior to nonwhites,[4] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[7] Both subgroups generally avoid the term supremacy because it has negative connotations.[8]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wow, look! It says the exact same thing I said.

Well... no, that only works with extreme cherry-picking. I already said that often white separationalists are often no different from white nationalists and that list of sources says just that. Separatists also preach for white-only breeding and the removal of non-whites from "their" state.

That's a white supremacist, which is considered a sub-group of white nationalism. There is white separatism that seeks a white-only state; they do not necessarily believe they are better than you or want to kill you.

They do believe they're better, that's one of the core drivers of the white separatist movement. Do they want to kill non-whites? Some do, some don't. As a subset of white nationalism (which is something we can agree on) their core principles align very closely with the parent group to the extent (as the sources show) that they're often indistinguishable in practice.

 

[mustafur]

White nationalism from my knowledge is just people who want a single race society they use Japan as pretty much their example and seem convinced it must happen if white people are to exist in the future, I wouldn't say it's violent just racist.

Or atleast anti diversity, I would suspect there is a huge number of people in western countries that are closet White nationalists, like Pauline Hanson in Australia.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's been a third US Navy collision (four in the last year if you count the sub), one has to wonder how such heavily defended ships are caught so unawares by civil traffic. BBC.

 

[eran0004]

From what I understand of fascism, it's an ideology that seeks to use force to prevent the expression of opposing viewpoints (culminating in a total police state where opinion is not permitted and dissent is punishable by assault, imprisonment, and death).

If 'anti-fascists' seek to use force to prevent the expression of the viewpoint of fascists - particularly if they seek to use the force of law, by making the viewpoints illegal - are they not then fascists?


Saying that everyone should have the right to free expression unless they're saying things you don't like (which BLM did this week) is the first step towards fascism.

The irony of antifa.

That's not what fascism is about though. Fascism is about ultra-nationalism, the myth of decadence and the myth of the rebirth of the nation. They use violence as a way to suppress opposition, but that's not something that is unique to fascism.

You could argue that embracing violence makes a group just as bad as fascists, but it's not enough to actually make them fascists.

 

[05XR8]

Timely, yet very much worth a reading.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/

 

[Famine]

Fascism is about ultra-nationalism, the myth of decadence and the myth of the rebirth of the nation.

That would seem to be conflating two philosophies. Fascism is purely the opposite of anarchism - that is total governmental regulation of all behaviour, enforced by a highly militarised police force with no limits on stop, search, entry and even execution powers, and kangaroo courts where courts even still exist. It may be for nationalist reasons but it doesn't have to be - it can work at sub-nationalist levels (separatists) or supra-nationalist (imperialists), and since most nations started out as a group of others getting together or a part of one splitting off, there's not much need to bring nationalism into it.

Nonetheless, many antifascist and special interest groups want to make certain thoughts, opinions, symbols and speech (Nazism) illegal in their nation - which would be a governmental regulation on behaviour enforced by the police and courts. That rather looks like fascism to me.

 

[UKMikey]

Timely, yet very much worth a reading.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/

When I click on the link you've provided my browser returns a 500 internal server error. Are you referring to this quotation? If so, I agree with its timeliness.

 

[eran0004]

That would seem to be conflating two philosophies. Fascism is purely the opposite of anarchism - that is total governmental regulation of all behaviour, enforced by a highly militarised police force with no limits on stop, search, entry and even execution powers, and kangaroo courts where courts even still exist. It may be for nationalist reasons but it doesn't have to be - it can work at sub-nationalist levels (separatists) or supra-nationalist (imperialists), and since most nations started out as a group of others getting together or a part of one splitting off, there's not much need to bring nationalism into it.

Nonetheless, many antifascist and special interest groups want to make certain thoughts, opinions, symbols and speech (Nazism) illegal in their nation - which would be a governmental regulation on behaviour enforced by the police and courts. That rather looks like fascism to me.

What you describe is totalitarianism. Fascism is built on the idea of national rebirth, the cult of youth and strength, fear of communism and socialism. Those are not optional extras. Totalitarianism is a part of fascism, but fascism is more than just totalitarianism.

 

[Famine]

totalitarianism

Is total state regulation of behaviour and production.

 

[eran0004]

Is total state regulation of behaviour and production.

Still a much better term to use than fascism.

 

[Famine]

Still a much better term to use than fascism.

Not really, as antifa aren't seeking to have white nationalists/supremacists indentured as state slaves, only legally banning them under threat of arrest and criminal conviction, from having an opinion they don't agree with.

 

[eran0004]

Not really, as antifa aren't seeking to have white nationalists/supremacists indentured as state slaves, only legally banning them under threat of arrest and criminal conviction, from having an opinion they don't agree with.

Fascism is a totalitarian ideology, so if you don't think that antifa is totalitarian then you can't say that they are fascist either.

 

[Famine]

Fascism is a totalitarian ideology, so if you don't think that antifa is totalitarian then you can't say that they are fascist either.

We already did this one. Please find something else to argue the toss about needlessly.

 

[05XR8]

When I click on the link you've provided my browser returns a 500 internal server error. Are you referring to this quotation? If so, I agree with its timeliness.

Yesterday I shared a brief passage from W.E.B. DuBois on Confederate monuments. Below is an short essay from DuBois on Robert E. Lee’s legacy published in 1928.

Robert E. Lee

Each year on the 19th of January there is renewed effort to canonize Robert E. Lee, the greatest confederate general. His personal comeliness, his aristocratic birth and his military prowess all call for the verdict of greatness and genius. But one thing–one terrible fact–militates against this and that is the inescapable truth that Robert E. Lee led a bloody war to perpetuate slavery. Copperheads like the New York Times may magisterially declare: “of course, he never fought for slavery.” Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. He followed Virginia not because he particularly loved slavery (although he certainly did not hate it), but because he did not have the moral courage to stand against his family and his clan. Lee hesitated and hung his head in shame because he was asked to lead armies against human progress and Christian decency and did not dare refuse. He surrendered not to Grant, but to Negro Emancipation.

Today we can best perpetuate his memory and his nobler traits not by falsifying his moral debacle, but by explaining it to the young white south. What Lee did in 1861, other Lees are doing in 1928. They lack the moral courage to stand up for justice to the Negro because of the overwhelming public opinion of their social environment. Their fathers in the past have condoned lynching and mob violence, just as today they acquiesce in the disfranchisement of educated and worthy black citizens, provide wretchedly inadequate public schools for Negro children and endorse a public treatment of sickness, poverty and crime which disgraces civilization.

It is the punishment of the South that its Robert Lees and Jefferson Davises will always be tall, handsome and well-born. That their courage will be physical and not moral. That their leadership will be weak compliance with public opinion and never costly and unswerving revolt for justice and right. it is ridiculous to seek to excuse Robert Lee as the most formidable agency this nation ever raised to make 4 million human beings goods instead of men. Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel–not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.