I think that you were reading too much into what I wrote. I’m not “scapegoating” anyone (I’ve always said the lion’s share of blame should go to white people, if anything), but I was only trying to explain why some people might be inclined to do so. I didn’t say that I believed it, as I’m actually more agnostic about it. But I haven’t found cause to dismiss it out of hand either. Still, I’ve never believed that they were all the same or a monolithic group, nor do I believe in any “conspiracy.” But I don’t think there’s any harm in open discussion about it. Some people seem to be real touchy about it, even if the subject is only lightly broached. That’s what seems to stand out more prominently than any actual debate about the subject.
Really, all I’m doing here is just explaining the reasons why, trying to be as condensed and as inoffensive as I can try to be. I’m not attempting to ascribe any causation here, but just to state observations and perceptions. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I don’t think that I’m “irrational.” I do have some pretty strong opinions, I will admit, and I am a bit of a cynic.
I have been procrastinating asking a question, as I have been silently following this discussion from the beginning. I have been surprised by the diversity of stated views on white nationalism. Millen88, xenologist, and not picard seem to represent a philosophy that is markedly different from that of Salvador or Urban Hunter among others. How can you possibly co-exist with each other?
Many of the posters at stormfront clearly glorify the Nazis and the KKK among other hate groups and ideologies. The substitution of Juden for Jewish is common. Much of the content is built around white supremacy, not just separation. Were I Millen, for instance, I can’t imagine finding common ground with Salvador. If I truly believed in this movement I would see the radical fringe as poison to the cause.
It seems a bit like going from an intellectual sympathy with the Palestinian people to joining Hezbollah. So I guess what I am asking is: First, has any WN toned down their views here so as to make their cause seem more palatable? Second, do any of the more moderate WNs recognize the damage that the hard core racist WN does to even the potential growth of their cause? Third, what characteristics of white nationalism do you think prevents your cause from gaining a wider audience?
Let me stress that I have no sympathies at all with white nationalism. I am just amazed that you don’t end up ripping each others’ throats out. Even among white nationalists who have posted here the differing ideologies seem wildly incompatible.
True, but you got to read the whole thing to see my point.
I guess the reason I swish it is that the violent types are probably close to as many as they’ll ever be. Any large growth in White Nationalism will come from increasingly moderate types. Plus a lot of them are just kids being scary.
Only volunteer polling without a large enough sample really, and it’s on Stormfront.
The last time people like you took over a country, they soon began rounding up and executing, en masse, millions of Jews. And thousands of gays. And thousands of Roma. And hundreds of members of the Christian clergy.
Why the Hell should we think your klan of folks would be any different?
I firmly believe that if a white nationalist government were to take control of where I live, I would soon be executed for homosexuality. Because, historically speaking, that is precisely the sort of thing your movement supports.
Whites have also invaded many nations and killed off the inhabitants (often, as from 1930 to 1945 within their own white lands). I know that it is fashionable in some circles to make some sort of unsupported association between “communists” and “multiculturalists,” but the really big “communist” murderer was clearly a white monoculturalist.
And, of course, we have white Turks killing off white Armenians and white Brits allowing white Irish to starve by the hundreds of thousands without any “communist” influence at all.
There are certainly as many loons on the Left as on the Right, but I hardly think that you are on steady ground if the best you can do is point to individual, mentally unstable loons to argue against a position. For every van der Graaf you can find, I can find a dozen or more John William Kings.
(This would go for some of the more hyperbolic outbursts by a couple of SDMB posters, as well, of course.)
BTW, Volkert van der Graaf is no more a communist than you are. (What is it with some of you folks and your ignorance of 20th century political movements?)
BOLDING MINE
Given that you have no evidence for your belief, what sort of quack science do you propose to use to make these tests?
Your lifespan statistic is pure bullshit and the psychological complaints you list would most likely disappear if homosexuals were not persecuted. We don’t need to kill (even through abortion) people simply to stop hurting them.
There is a rather far distance between rejecting the claims of Robertson and Falwell the homosexuality is a choice and being able to identify an actual genetic test to determine wo might be homosexually oriented. Is is an even farther reach to finding a way (short of abortion) to eliminate the expression of that trait. (And if it is genetic, you have still not displayed a reason to believe it is a defect, so you have no basis beyond prejudice to even wish to modifiy or eliminate people in that situation.)
You will score no points trying to put words in my mouth (while falsely portraying your own words).
I have taken no side in the abortion debate in this discussion. You however claimed that you would “screen out” homosexuals.
If the mother chose to not abort, your screening would not be successful.
If you successfully implemented a plan for screening, you would not be giving the mother a choice.
So in which post did you declare a falsehood?
My only point is that you have already decided upon an action that your “pure” society will take that:
is based on non-existent science
and
requires that all persons bend to the will of the state (on an issue you now claim will be their choice)
and only for the purpose of eliminating a group against which you have baseless prejudices (thus confirming the fears that spectrum expressed regarding your movement).
Maybe you have a problem with history. I suppose your replies are only an indicator of the significant lack of education amongst your movement’s members. Hey, guess what…“white” nations have been fighting and killing each other just as much as any other nation since the beginning of time. The idea that once nations are all white that suddenly peace and prosperity will reign forever more is complete BULLSHIT. Like I said before there is no such thing as a perfectly homogenous society. Europe (until recent times) has always been warlike with one nation, tribe, or religious faction vying for control over another. Read about the numerous wars between christianity vs pagans. Or how about the neverending wars based on royal intrigue? Or the fairly recent conflicts based on political systems (communist vs fascist vs republic) Hell, europeans were even still fighting each other DURING the mongol invasion.
Wow Ian Mckellen must be an ARYAN superman then! Not only is he almost 70 but he’s a well known homosexual to boot! :rolleyes:
Your assumptions are baseless generalizations borne out of your prejudices.
Your first point may have some truth to it, but I suspect that your “98%” is way high. At any rate, it still amounts to the claim that most women would rather abort than give birth to a child that is suspected of possibly having a homosexual orientation. (And, of course, this ignores the rather salient point that orientation falls across a spectrum rather than being an ON/OFF switch, so even if your speculative test is ever designed, there is no reason to expect it to accurately predict anything, so why would a woman choose to abort based on tests that cannot predict an outcome?)
Given that you already consider homosexuals defective in some manner. the notion that you would treat them with dignity and respect is ludicrous.
I seriously doubt your claim that white nationalists are predominantly atheist. I would say that the overwhelming literature that I have seen distributed on the street by the WN movement has made appeals to a rather specific brand of Protestant Christianity (and within the WN, based on message board posts, there are a lot of people who wish they could be Nordic pagans if they could just find out what they were supposed to do to join). It is possible that most of the WNs that participate on message boards are atheist, but the rank and file seem to be quite established in either splinter Christian groups, attempts to fire up some neo-pagan religion (although not wanting to associate with those other neo-pagans, of course), and folks like those of the World Church of the Creator. Among those groups, I see lots of room for either religious or pseudo-scientific arguments against homosexuality. You have already posted specious claims, yourself.
Your link to the CPR site is typical of groups that cherrypick statistics on the one hand and resort to post hoc ergo propter hoc argumentation on the other. It is possible (not proved) that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals for any nuimber of reasons, however you made the claim that they had a life expectancy of 40 and no serious, unbiased numbers support that claim.
(For example, the claim that homosexuals “flocked” to Kinsey’s earlier studies is factually untrue. The next several references are to studies conducted at a time when few older homosexuals would have been bold enough to come out to any sort of study. The rest of their “studies” are nothing more than anecdotes or “studies” of populations as small as 34. That site had more science in the technology of the web design than in any of the text ot displayed.)
BTW, why are you quoting a religious site instead of a good a-theistic (meaning religion neutral, not religion-opposed) site for your invented information on homosexuality? Would it not have made more sense to find some actual science?
I think you’re giving the Nazi racists way too much credit, tom. Why should we expect there to be any limit to the inherent evil they’re willing to embrace?
It’s difficult at times, but not impossible. Most of us seem to have the same perceptions; that is, we see the same things in society and recognize the same problems. The differences among us come down to solutions, and everyone has their own ideas. But having similar perceptions is a significant part of it. I get the impression that the differences between WN and anti-racists is that we have diametrically-opposed perceptions more than anything else.
I would say that it’s more a rebellious tactic than anything else. Back during the Vietnam War, protesters would wave the flag of North Vietnam, which should be taken more as a protest against the US government than actual genuine support of the communist regime. Even now, some people might sport anarchist or communist symbols, and nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Few people (except for folks like myself) accuse them of “glorifying” communists, Stalin, or the Siberian gulags.
It’s the German word. I don’t speak German, so I don’t use it myself, but I don’t believe that the word “Juden” is an insult or slur in the German language. I may be wrong about that, though.
I would look at it differently, although there are actual “supremists” who post to SF. In most cases, however, I would say it’s just a matter of preference and partiality. In that way, it’s not unlike sports fans supporting their hometown team. It doesn’t matter if they’re a great team or a lousy team; they’ll still support their team. Similarly, some Americans might be inclined to say that “America is the greatest country on Earth.” Does that make them “American Supremacists”?
You’re not the only one who believes that. Many White Nationalists feel similarly.
Yes, that’s the general trend of the pro-White cause. There are those who are more “image-conscious” than others. The use of racial epithets is frowned upon and discouraged. Imagery and symbolism of an “inflammatory” nature is also somewhat discouraged, though not prohibited entirely. Some people believe that WN would be better off if that sort of stuff was prohibited, and those who don’t toe the line should be purged.
I have mixed feelings about it myself. On the one hand, I agree that NS and KKK imagery is bad for the image of the pro-White cause, but then on the other hand, this is still America and people have the right to wear whatever symbols they like. So, it represents a bit of a conflict for me personally. It’s almost as if we have to become “fascists” in order to prove to everyone else that we’re not “fascists.” There is a bit of an irony there.
Yes. I think that it undoubtedly hurts certain organizations which are more hardcore than others.
If I was to do a critical analysis of the faults of WN, then much of it would have to do with what I consider to be irrelevancies. Without going into detail, I think it would be better if WN focused on the future, rather than dwelling on the past (although I admit that I’m guilty of that myself at times).
Admittedly, many of us are extremists, and sometimes, the tendency to “shoot the moon” and advocate total and complete political change runs pretty strong. Although there are historical precedents for that, it’s just not the sort of thing most people can really get behind unless things get really, really bad. However, WN doesn’t necessarily have to be a “revolutionary” movement. It could also be used as a vehicle to work within the system, perhaps as an advocacy group for White people. Perhaps it could be manifested in social/cultural organizations for the significant numbers of White people, particularly White youth, who feel some displaced, alienated, and disaffected in society. A sense of “belonging” might be what they need. Anytime White people try to organize even a benign or apolitical organization or club for Whites, it either gets outlawed or condemned, and there’s really no reason for such a reaction.
So, as long as mainstream society continues to lump those who are moderately pro-White with those who are more extreme about it, then really, we’re all each other has. Extremists are nothing more than moderates who are given no other choices.
That does happen occasionally. It’s not pretty.
Sure, just as the Democrats and Republicans might seem wildly incompatible, and yet, they still manage to get some things done (although very little).