Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic A Question to Racial Nationalists of Any Kind Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]snowfish[/m] at 5:41 am on Oct. 16, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]Shaknbake[/m] at 1:46 am on Oct. 16, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]snowfish[/m] at 8:40 am on Oct. 15, 2008[quote]races may be equal, but we aren't treated equally by the racist society that we live in. Being Native American, having never had the option of having a nation, I am for having more Indian Nationalism. Reservations are officially sovereign nations but in fact just get screwed over by the U.S. government by that status. We need actual sovereignty. [/quote] What reservation do you know of that has the territory/tribe that has the membership necessary to constitute a functioning, independent state? Or are you instead envisioning something like a plurality of little Monacos; sovereign on paper, but practically exactly the same as the country engulfing it, with no room for political self determination. [/quote] 1) your latter description is just basically an overview of how rezes work today. As to needing large membership for a functioning state, there are a lot more indians out there than those federally recognized and there's not a minimum number of people needed to constitute a nation, tribal living worked for us for thousands of years. In the last 500 years we've had to abandon a lot of tribalism and work together with other indigenous folk as we all get lumped into the same catagory. On my rez for example, there are three tribes living together, only two of which are federally recognized (the other 1/3rd of the indians supposedly don't exist). Intertribal solidarity and banding together is necessary and I don't advocate a return to how things were before european contact, but to say that we are incapable of governing ourselves is ridiculous colonial diatribe.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Bud2400 Posted at 10:24 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 I have seen how concepts like white nationalism, black nationalism, Asian nationalism, etc. have developed in people without any real hatred of other races.  To claim these people prejudiced against other races, and thus fueling their nationalism, seems to be quite an assumption to make, even if it may be applicable to a good number of these people.  However, in all fairness, they are not until they have proven themselves to be so. But I have noticed a slight contradiction among racial nationalists.  They advocate for the separation of all races and the purification of at least their race.  Yet at the same time, those who believe this and harbor no hatred against other races usually also believes all races to be inherently equal (for if not, they would assert the superiority, or at least a hierarchy, of one over the others, which would make them technically a racist, which they often vehemently deny). This in itself is not a contradiction, but I'd have to ask to the racial nationalists or anybody who thinks they can answer a few questions regarding this: 1) If all races are truly inherently equal (and by that, I mean if hypothetically born under the same exact circumstances, with the only difference being their race), then what is the significance of keeping a certain racial group pure?  Why would it be important? 2) What are the dangers of racial intermixing?  If it's so important that we do not intermix despite our inherent equality, what kinds of negatives are we preventing?  Why would these negatives come about? 3) If you answered racial tensions in question #2, then is racial intermixing really the cause of the problem, or is self-identification with a race (that supposedly has little implications on a person due to every race's inherent equality) to the point that it forms a major part of one's identity, thereby leading groups to form and tensions to form between these groups more of the cause? While believing all races to be inherently equal and also needing to remain separate is not a contradiction in and of itself, it seems to me that the reasoning for keeping the races separate appears to contradict that.  After all, if everyone individual was inherently equal despite the race, what would be the issue with intermixing?  If dangers come about from racial intermixing, it certainly could not be because both are inherently equal, could it?

Replies kidd rune Posted at 6:42 am on Nov. 2, 2008 White nationalism IS white SUPREMACY. They CAN be, but there is no definite YES to that. DAVID DUKE IS A SELF-DESCRIBED WHITE NATIONALIST AND HE IS A HIGH PROFILE LEADER OF THE KKK. Obviously you know nothing of the KKK - many KKK groups are NOT White Supremacist groups, but simply WHITE PRIDE Groups or White Christian Revival groups. But you'd have to know Klansmen to know that - you can't know from soaking in what the TV tells you. Also, have you seen Duke talk about his past KKK experience? He doesn't have the same ideology. I've yet to see principles of a "white nationalist" that don't explictly support white supreamist ideology. Preservation of White culture is one. Preservation of race. Oh, I FORGOT - that's SOO RACIST. Because if tigers were endangered and people went out to help them survive and not become exitinct, THAT WOULD BE RACIST AGAINST LIONS. Again, white nationalism is a smokescreen for white supremacism. You're supposed to have proof before you say that - you didn't. And I'm not the only one who thinks as such. That's not proof at all. There are about 2 billion Christians - does that make Jesus the son of Gpd? What about the 4million people that AREN'T Christian, there are MORE of them, does that make Christianity 100% false? "White supremacists - many call themselves nationalists or "White activists," with a capital W - have had limited political success" Damnit, can't beat that undefeatable logic right there. You BOLDED it and it SAID that WN's are WS's - that is undeniable proof I can't hope to beat. And it all matters what you think a White Nationalist is. Many presidents of the USA have been White Nationalists, is that not political success? "Barrett is evasive about his ideology and tries to keep reporters from using "buzz words" to describe him. He doesn't call himself a white supremacist, although the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center do. " Who the hell is Barrett? "Jason Robb, a Harrison, Ark., attorney who represents the Klan's Knights Party, describes himself as a "white nationalist."   List his beliefs. Well, look what I found, the KKK is, surprise, a white nationalist group. The fact that you used the terms "the" and "KKK" together shows how uneducated you are about this subject. There is no KKK group that is "The KKK" But, I am aware that the Knights of the KKK seem to call themselves "The KKK" because of their high numbers - but they are against killing. The KKK (I'm speaking of THE KKK, not any KKK in existence today) can NOT be compared to anything today accurately unless you KNOW what they practice or believe in. And afterall, my dear friend, they'd never even be remotely associated with white supremacy. Actually, some KKK groups say they are AGAINST White Nationalists and admit to being White Supremacists. Why..white supremacists isn't a buzzword.. How many Klansmen do you know? They're not just saying that as a foolish attempt at making themselves more appealing. Sure... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/national/main4331869.shtml?source=related_story (this is Canadian news) Why do I care who they support for president? Most White Nationalists I know don't like Obama OR McCain. Takinam Posted at 11:42 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:00 am on Oct. 31, 2008 It is a smokescreen for supremacy. I'm sure MANY WN's are WS's - but WHITE NATIONALISM IS NOT RELATED TO WHITE SUPREMACY. Same beast, different name. Prove it. Stormfront is a white nationalist group as well. Stormfront, as I understand, is a forum for Whites proud of their heritage - many being WN's, while many are WS's and others. White nationalism IS white SUPREMACY. DAVID DUKE IS A SELF-DESCRIBED WHITE NATIONALIST AND HE IS A HIGH PROFILE LEADER OF THE KKK. Stop with the lying.  I've yet to see principles of a "white nationalist" that don't explictly support white supreamist ideology. Again, white nationalism is a smokescreen for white supremacism. And I'm not the only one who thinks as such. "White supremacists - many call themselves nationalists or "White activists," with a capital W - have had limited political success[" " Barrett is evasive about his ideology and tries to keep reporters from using "buzz words" to describe him. He doesn't call himself a white supremacist, although the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center do. " "Jason Robb, a Harrison, Ark., attorney who represents the Klan's Knights Party, describes himself as a "white nationalist." --- Well, look what I found, the KKK is, surprise, a white nationalist group. And afterall, my dear friend, they'd never even be remotely associated with white supremacy. Why..white supremacists isn't a buzzword.. They're not just saying that as a foolish attempt at making themselves more appealing. --- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/national/main4331869.shtml?source=related_story (this is Canadian news) kidd rune Posted at 7:00 am on Oct. 31, 2008 It is a smokescreen for supremacy. I'm sure MANY WN's are WS's - but WHITE NATIONALISM IS NOT RELATED TO WHITE SUPREMACY. Same beast, different name. Prove it. Stormfront is a white nationalist group as well. Stormfront, as I understand, is a forum for Whites proud of their heritage - many being WN's, while many are WS's and others. Takinam Posted at 12:31 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:04 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from OnlyTooProud at 1:07 am on Oct. 28, 2008 I don't understand the Ideal's of Supremacy myself. Nationalism isn't Supremacy though. It is a smokescreen for supremacy. Same beast, different name. Stormfront is a white nationalist group as well. kidd rune Posted at 7:04 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from OnlyTooProud at 1:07 am on Oct. 28, 2008 I don't understand the Ideal's of Supremacy myself. Nationalism isn't Supremacy though. OnlyTooProud Posted at 10:07 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 I don't understand the Ideal's of Supremacy myself. jakelong Posted at 8:43 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 11:26 am on Oct. 23, 2008 it's that some people have MORE IMPORTANT jobs. Which is a non sequitur. kidd rune Posted at 11:26 am on Oct. 23, 2008 It pretty much kills your entire argument. No, it doesn't. We're not talking about averages this time - but numbers. By your measure  ONLY the white descendents of the founding fathers have any claim to contributing to the country and have any rights to live and prosper in the country. All others are just parasites and deadweights. I don't recall saying this. ONLY  the founding fathers "worked their butts off" to create the country. All others, balck and white just provided labor and therefore by YOUR measure were not important. It's not that they weren't important - it's that some people have MORE IMPORTANT jobs. jakelong Posted at 11:44 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:14 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 It doesn't matter if most Whites didn't contribute. It pretty much kills your entire argument. By your measure  ONLY the white descendents of the founding fathers have any claim to contributing to the country and have any rights to live and prosper in the country. All others are just parasites and deadweights. ONLY  the founding fathers "worked their butts off" to create the country. All others, balck and white just provided labor and therefore by YOUR measure were not important. If the majority of the people that DID influence the USA were White, than it stays. Those who DID influence the US were British rich land owners with a high degree of education. They represented less than 1% of the colonists in the US. The majority of the people who according to you ONLY provided labor and so contributed VERY LITTLE (according to you) were also white. So the point is moot. kidd rune Posted at 3:14 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 10:34 pm on Oct. 21, 2008 Totally relevant. You are using the exceptions to make your rule. Thats pretty full of shit. It doesn't matter if most Whites didn't contribute. If the majority of the people that DID influence the USA were White, than it stays. jakelong Posted at 10:34 pm on Oct. 21, 2008 Totally relevant. You are using the exceptions to make your rule. Thats pretty full of shit. kidd rune Posted at 3:12 pm on Oct. 21, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 2:01 am on Oct. 21, 2008 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 5:57 pm on Oct. 20, 2008 The average white person contributed equally little, it's a rare person (by definition) whatever the race who ends up on a "50 most influential" list. I agree. Basing everything on what exceptional ppl did is totally whacked. Irrelevant. jakelong Posted at 2:01 am on Oct. 21, 2008 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 5:57 pm on Oct. 20, 2008  The average white person contributed equally little, it's a rare person (by definition) whatever the race who ends up on a "50 most influential" list. I agree. Basing everything on what exceptional ppl did is totally whacked. osmoticdespair Posted at 5:57 pm on Oct. 20, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 11:36 pm on Oct. 20, 2008 http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/CN120606.htm Out of the first 50 "Most influential Americans," only 4 were Negroes. (Jackie Robinson, MLK, DuBois, and Douglass)   To think that 4 people, or 8% of the 50 most influential Americans equally contributed is ludicrous. To think that Negroes contributed equally/more is also claiming that the average Negro contributed more to the USA than the average nonNegro, also ludicrous. The average white person contributed equally little, it's a rare person (by definition) whatever the race who ends up on a "50 most influential" list. Which is not to say that being on such a list is the defining factor of contribution to a nation. The people on that list would never have a chance to be there without a whole society around them making it possible, man is not an island. kidd rune Posted at 3:36 pm on Oct. 20, 2008 http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/CN120606.htm Out of the first 50 "Most influential Americans," only 4 were Negroes. (Jackie Robinson, MLK, DuBois, and Douglass) To think that 4 people, or 8% of the 50 most influential Americans equally contributed is ludicrous. To think that Negroes contributed equally/more is also claiming that the average Negro contributed more to the USA than the average nonNegro, also ludicrous. Most recent 15 of 59 previous replies displayed.