PDA

View Full Version : civic nationalism vs. White nationalism vs. whatever else


phuckphace
September 21st, 2016, 01:14 PM
hey there, Ramblings of the Weissvolk, it's time to deconstruct nationalism!

so we're now in the midst of the biggest populist wave in a very long time - the God Emperor has attracted a YUGE following that includes but is not limited to conservatives, former pseudoconservatives who redeemed themselves, current pseudoconservatives who hate Trump less than Hillary, liberals who hate Hillary more than they hate Trump, lolbertarians that think the free market will make them as rich as Trump, lolbertarians who fear border walls less than President Hillary, Evolian monarchists, Moldbuggian monarchists, White Nationalists, paleocon traditionalists, Third Positionists, Jews and homos who fear Muslims more than the Drumpfstaffel, naturalized Mexicans who hate wetbacks, Uncle Tom blacks and last but not least, me (and hopefully you!)

we're multicultural and diverse like that, you see. while it's a given that any Trump supporter will be lumped in with White Nationalists, I think there's some important distinctions to be made here:

White Nationalism is a non-starter. it focuses too narrowly on race to the detriment of everything else - missing the forest for the trees, you could say. while race and demographics are (very) important, these folks think all our problems will vanish overnight if we DNA test everyone and remove those who can't get over the "whiteness threshold." not only is this view disingenuous - or dare I say, autistic - it's not gonna happen, ever. whole movement is basically people who want to keep the status quo minus the melanin levels, or if they don't want to keep it, they have no ideas for what to replace it with.

White Nationalists are also eerily similar to Black Lives Matter - both attribute their failures not to themselves but to an external enemy, and base their movement around some "brotherhood" that is about as real as Hillary's chances of still being alive by this date in 2017. it's impossible to discuss any political idea with them that isn't their own - all else is either "cucked" or "infiltrated by Jews." if you think this sounds like more or less the same thing as "da white man be holdin black bodies down SMDH!!!" you'd be right.

WNs are a tiny movement, have always been tiny, have always had zero influence and are eternally baffled as to why this is. meanwhile outside of the Internet, a populist movement that literally did not exist even 2 years ago has blown right past them and victory is by this point all but assured. while I would personally like something a bit "harder", civic nationalism has captured broad appeal (something no WN can claim) and already accomplished more in a year than David Dook has in his entire loser life, so why not? Trump isn't Hitler - all Hitler did was lose. it's time to win again!

Hyper
September 21st, 2016, 07:36 PM
False Emperors shall bring the wrath of the Ordo Hereticus upon them!

But like, where is the debate/question here?

phuckphace
September 21st, 2016, 08:03 PM
But like, where is the debate/question here?

my effortposts don't usually have a central question, I aim more toward setting up a topic and letting my readers pick something out of the OP to talk about if they like - thoughts, questions, critiques, I'm not picky. hmu with posts fam, I'm bored!

Hyper
September 21st, 2016, 08:26 PM
my effortposts don't usually have a central question, I aim more toward setting up a topic and letting my readers pick something out of the OP to talk about if they like - thoughts, questions, critiques, I'm not picky. hmu with posts fam, I'm bored!

It sounds as if you are an evil instigator.

And baiter, with all those pony political affiliation buzzwords and stuff in there.

I can't really latch onto anything, since I have no personal dogmas in regards to American politics, so I'll just have to bide my time and either be entertained by whatever, if at all, follows and maybe find something to interject with later on :P

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 21st, 2016, 08:31 PM
I agree with a lot of what you've said here. Trump has basically gathered around himself a huge hodgepodge of people who have been disgruntled with the current situation. He inspires people, gives the hope that there will be a brighter tomorrow, and people gather around that. Clinton isn't nearly as inspirational, and is more about keeping the status quo set by Obama rather than change. I'm not criticizing any of their positions right now, but Trump's message is simply more attractive to the general public than Clinton's. That is part of what got Obama in office, he was a great orator with an inspiring message.

I will say that nationalism as a whole has gone up considerably since Trump began his campaign. That falls under what I've said earlier involving inspiration. I don't really know about white nationalism though. Like you've said, that is a very small group, and it's policies honestly are too narrow minded. It is funny though, some people say that more race is the problem, while others say that more race is the answer. I personally fall in the middle, though probably leaning more towards the less race side. I in no way support Affirmative Action, diversity quotas, and identity politics. Those are much more of a determent than a help. But of course I don't want to deport every black guy in the USA, despite what you might want to say, I actually do have a heart.

That's my two cents on the topic. I didn't really start any debates, or add anything major, but I do just like having a reasonable discussion like this without worrying about a debate.

ThisBougieLife
September 21st, 2016, 10:26 PM
I agree.

It's very autistic.

;)

phuckphace
September 21st, 2016, 10:26 PM
Hyper - not bait, fam. I don't feel like fishing today.

PlasmaHam - 80% of what got Obama into office was eight years of Bush. that's literally it. before the nomination Obama was a literal who from nobody could say where because it didn't matter, everyone just wanted the GOP to fuck off. the other 20% was white people staying home on Election Day because their party nominee was so old, evil, stupid and banal. that's to say the GOP fucked up so bad they nearly drove themselves extinct. imagine actually believing that lumpenprole hordes from a third world country vote any other way but straight-ticket [welfare party]. imagine actually believing that hawking $75 guac bowls will get you votes from said horde out of appreciation. the more you think about it the funnier it gets!

Porpoise101
September 22nd, 2016, 07:10 PM
Rise of globalization and internet = rise in radicalization
SPLC*-scroll down b/c they won't let me steal their graph (https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map)

*I admit they lean to the left a bit, but I don't think there is a more comprehensive source on hate groups/extremism unfortunately.

Arkansasguy
September 22nd, 2016, 10:31 PM
hey there, Ramblings of the Weissvolk, it's time to deconstruct nationalism!

so we're now in the midst of the biggest populist wave in a very long time - the God Emperor has attracted a YUGE following that includes but is not limited to conservatives, former pseudoconservatives who redeemed themselves, current pseudoconservatives who hate Trump less than Hillary, liberals who hate Hillary more than they hate Trump, lolbertarians that think the free market will make them as rich as Trump, lolbertarians who fear border walls less than President Hillary, Evolian monarchists, Moldbuggian monarchists, White Nationalists, paleocon traditionalists, Third Positionists, Jews and homos who fear Muslims more than the Drumpfstaffel, naturalized Mexicans who hate wetbacks, Uncle Tom blacks and last but not least, me (and hopefully you!)

we're multicultural and diverse like that, you see. while it's a given that any Trump supporter will be lumped in with White Nationalists, I think there's some important distinctions to be made here:

White Nationalism is a non-starter. it focuses too narrowly on race to the detriment of everything else - missing the forest for the trees, you could say. while race and demographics are (very) important, these folks think all our problems will vanish overnight if we DNA test everyone and remove those who can't get over the "whiteness threshold." not only is this view disingenuous - or dare I say, autistic - it's not gonna happen, ever. whole movement is basically people who want to keep the status quo minus the melanin levels, or if they don't want to keep it, they have no ideas for what to replace it with.

White Nationalists are also eerily similar to Black Lives Matter - both attribute their failures not to themselves but to an external enemy, and base their movement around some "brotherhood" that is about as real as Hillary's chances of still being alive by this date in 2017. it's impossible to discuss any political idea with them that isn't their own - all else is either "cucked" or "infiltrated by Jews." if you think this sounds like more or less the same thing as "da white man be holdin black bodies down SMDH!!!" you'd be right.

WNs are a tiny movement, have always been tiny, have always had zero influence and are eternally baffled as to why this is. meanwhile outside of the Internet, a populist movement that literally did not exist even 2 years ago has blown right past them and victory is by this point all but assured. while I would personally like something a bit "harder", civic nationalism has captured broad appeal (something no WN can claim) and already accomplished more in a year than David Dook has in his entire loser life, so why not? Trump isn't Hitler - all Hitler did was lose. it's time to win again!

You are right about white nationalists, they are basically monomaniacs who've convinced themselves that getting rid of nonwhites will magically fix all of our problems. It's also noteworthy that race is to some extent their only right-wing aspect. Many of them are basically liberals aside from that.

You also bring up another disturbing trend present in parts of the AltRight, obsession with the Jews. I don't think any reasonable person (which is of course a small minority of society) would dispute that Jews tend to be subversive, but this is to be expected. It's our fault for letting them succeed. Trying to portray whites as being helpless victims of the Jews is very unmanly.

Rise of globalization and internet = rise in radicalization
SPLC*-scroll down b/c they won't let me steal their graph (https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map)

*I admit they lean to the left a bit, but I don't think there is a more comprehensive source on hate groups/extremism unfortunately.

Saying that SPLC leans a little to the left is like saying that the Earth is a wee bit round, or that ISIS has some theocratic tendencies.

phuckphace
September 23rd, 2016, 10:03 AM
It's also noteworthy that race is to some extent their only right-wing aspect. Many of them are basically liberals aside from that.

yeah. they can be crudely summarized as "libertarians who hate darkies" - which of course is still a libertarian and thus still useless.

don't even get me started on those on "The Spectrum of Doom." white women are degenerate whores, mutters the dumpy, awkward autist as he queues up a 100GB download of waifu hentai and readies the import Japanese pocket-pussy. I can't wait to see what "solution" the Reich has in store for us here!

You also bring up another disturbing trend present in parts of the AltRight, obsession with the Jews. I don't think any reasonable person (which is of course a small minority of society) would dispute that Jews tend to be subversive, but this is to be expected. It's our fault for letting them succeed. Trying to portray whites as being helpless victims of the Jews is very unmanly.

yeah they don't "get" the Jew thing any more than they "get" anything else because their perspectives are limited and they live in the same self-affirming bubble that leftists do - only surrounding themselves with other autists and paranoid schizophrenics who echo their own views to the T. instead of seeking conflict with leftoids they ought to just team up already.

I also agree with your points about where the blame lies. the post-1965 brown America was legislated into existence by lily white Aryans - this needs to be underscored a lot more than it currently is. you know what's even worse than being plotted against/betrayed by der ewige Jude? getting screwed by your own elected leaders.

Saying that SPLC leans a little to the left is like saying that the Earth is a wee bit round, or that ISIS has some theocratic tendencies.

or that Donald Trump does okay for himself, you know, just enough to get by.

Kahn
September 23rd, 2016, 01:27 PM
I think I could happily classify myself as a civic nationalist. I enjoyed the write-up.

candorgen
September 23rd, 2016, 04:31 PM
hey there, Ramblings of the Weissvolk, it's time to deconstruct nationalism!

Could do more with that in general actually.


so we're now in the midst of the biggest populist wave in a very long time - the God Emperor has attracted a YUGE following that includes but is not limited to conservatives, former pseudoconservatives who redeemed themselves, current pseudoconservatives who hate Trump less than Hillary, liberals who hate Hillary more than they hate Trump, lolbertarians that think the free market will make them as rich as Trump, lolbertarians who fear border walls less than President Hillary, Evolian monarchists, Moldbuggian monarchists, White Nationalists, paleocon traditionalists, Third Positionists, Jews and homos who fear Muslims more than the Drumpfstaffel, naturalized Mexicans who hate wetbacks, Uncle Tom blacks and last but not least, me (and hopefully you!)

I sure accept Trump's exceptional populist power. We could call them 'trumpertarians'.

He hasn't attracted me though. :D Nope.


we're multicultural and diverse like that, you see.

I see it as different types of supporters having their own reasons for supporting him, rather than coherent unity, though granted that some types of supporters are of huge numbers.


while it's a given that any Trump supporter will be lumped in with White Nationalists, I think there's some important distinctions to be made here:

White Nationalism is a non-starter. it focuses too narrowly on race to the detriment of everything else - missing the forest for the trees, you could say. while race and demographics are (very) important, these folks think all our problems will vanish overnight if we DNA test everyone and remove those who can't get over the "whiteness threshold." not only is this view disingenuous - or dare I say, autistic - it's not gonna happen, ever. whole movement is basically people who want to keep the status quo minus the melanin levels, or if they don't want to keep it, they have no ideas for what to replace it with.

I guess I don't disagree with this.


White Nationalists are also eerily similar to Black Lives Matter - both attribute their failures not to themselves but to an external enemy, and base their movement around some "brotherhood" that is about as real as Hillary's chances of still being alive by this date in 2017. it's impossible to discuss any political idea with them that isn't their own - all else is either "cucked" or "infiltrated by Jews." if you think this sounds like more or less the same thing as "da white man be holdin black bodies down SMDH!!!" you'd be right.

I don't doubt some highly generalist or extremist viewed people being part of BLM, but :/ this?


WNs are a tiny movement, have always been tiny, have always had zero influence and are eternally baffled as to why this is. meanwhile outside of the Internet, a populist movement that literally did not exist even 2 years ago has blown right past them and victory is by this point all but assured. while I would personally like something a bit "harder", civic nationalism has captured broad appeal (something no WN can claim) and already accomplished more in a year than David Dook has in his entire loser life, so why not? Trump isn't Hitler - all Hitler did was lose. it's time to win again!

So are you proposing that Trump's campaign and potential presidency needs a similar motivating force as with BLM?


I didn't really start any debates, or add anything major, but I do just like having a reasonable discussion like this without worrying about a debate.

That is something ROTW isn't the best for, I admit.

I agree.

It's very autistic.

;)

Autistic?

:confused:


Rise of globalization and internet = rise in radicalization
SPLC*-scroll down b/c they won't let me steal their graph (https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map)

*I admit they lean to the left a bit, but I don't think there is a more comprehensive source on hate groups/extremism unfortunately.

Thanks for the information. Do you think it's a reactionary trend?

Vlerchan
September 23rd, 2016, 04:39 PM
That is something ROTW isn't the best for, I admit.
I have never seen rational discussion and debate as non-synonymous.

In both cases, it's nice to see a little less shit talk.

---

Trump's appeal is his national-populism, as opposed to his civic nationalism, per se.

I'm not a supporter of populism.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 23rd, 2016, 05:05 PM
That is something ROTW isn't the best for, I admit.

As Vlerchan said, I don't see how this is too far off from the typical debating here. What I was saying, is that I like to have reasonable discussions about a specific topic without it failing into a "You're wrong I'm right" sorta debates.

candorgen
September 23rd, 2016, 05:19 PM
I have never seen rational discussion and debate as non-synonymous.

In both cases, it's nice to see a little less shit talk.

Agreed for both.


Trump's appeal is his national-populism, as opposed to his civic nationalism, per se.

I'm not a supporter of populism.

Agreed here also.

Porpoise101
September 24th, 2016, 12:41 PM
Saying that SPLC leans a little to the left is like saying that the Earth is a wee bit round, or that ISIS has some theocratic tendencies.
I don't see them calling for a global proletarian revolution, so yes, they are not "radical leftists". And as I said, they are the only ones with this data that I could find.

Kahn
September 24th, 2016, 01:08 PM
I'm not a supporter of populism.

Why?

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 02:11 PM
Why?
It's built on a number of misguided premises. That the collective ignorance of a given population will engender wisdom much beyond the sum of its parts, is the first. That this occurs at a constant rate, tends to accompany this thought.

One might argue that democratic governance is built on the same premise but then the entire point of post-Grecian democracy (i.e. representative governance) is that it was to align the best of aristocracy and popular-democracy. To release the will of the popular classes on society was never its aim. We have built constitutions on the recognition of this: a buffer against sudden spikes in popular support for certain ideas, which takes us to another issue: the whim of the people tends to be parochial and short-termistic.

That there is some apparent juxtaposition between the interests of the elite (or some other outgroup: immigrants is frequent one) and the popular-masses, is another, one that and underpins the first. If not leading to dangerous policy prescriptions - the notable result of the one-upmanship such politics tends to inspire - it polarises and undermines the common sense of society that the nationalist movements that desire to succeed, must be built on.

I am no elitist: I value democratic governance because knowledge about what conditions are good and bad is undoubtedly decentralised: but the notion that this knowledge shouldn't have a educated and competent party mediate it's implementation as policy - that the whim of the popular masses is pure and unadulterated and policy-ready, is something I can never support.

Arkansasguy
September 24th, 2016, 04:34 PM
I don't see them calling for a global proletarian revolution, so yes, they are not "radical leftists". And as I said, they are the only ones with this data that I could find.

Aside from Maoism no brand of leftism explicitly requires perpetual revolution. The other breeds of leftism should in theory not call for further revolution once they've won.

Porpoise101
September 24th, 2016, 09:43 PM
Aside from Maoism no brand of leftism explicitly requires perpetual revolution. The other breeds of leftism should in theory not call for further revolution once they've won.
I didn't say perpetual. Anyways, accounting for their bias, would you consider the source to be inadequate?

candorgen
September 25th, 2016, 05:32 PM
Aside from Maoism no brand of leftism explicitly requires perpetual revolution. The other breeds of leftism should in theory not call for further revolution once they've won.

These leftism brands you speak of are only currently 'left' if they desire certain socio-political stuff to happen and then stay that way, and future right-wing 'brands'. Not all 'brands' of leftism are like that.