Opinion What do you think of white nationalism?

[Rod1]

You deny this claim? Fine. For what other reason than minority status are they allowed to show pride?

You mean for the Nth time?

 

[dontsnitch]

You mean for the Nth time?

You quoted me. You don't want to engage, don't make it seem like your position is fool-proof. The reason why I ask is because your conclusion is not consistent.

It's pretty obvious that there are a few of you that will say whatever you need to in order to not let white people show pride. At first it was slavery, then minority status, then just general oppression, yet when I cite examples where this does not apply to POC, or does apply to white people, you reach for ad hoc explanations to fit your narrative that white pride is bad.

 

[Rod1]

You quoted me. You don't want to engage, don't make it seem like your position is fool-proof. The reason why I ask is because your conclusion is not consistent.

It's pretty obvious that there are a few of you that will say whatever you need to in order to not let white people show pride. At first it was slavery, then minority status, then just general oppression, yet when I cite examples where this does not apply to POC, or does apply to white people, you reach for ad hoc explanations to fit your narrative that white pride is bad.

You really want me to explain to you what has been explained to you like a bazillion times by now? so that in 2-3 days you ask me exactly the same thing?

 

[dontsnitch]

You really want me to explain to you what has been explained to you like a bazillion times by now? so that in 2-3 days you ask me exactly the same thing?

I don't want you to do anything, but don't quote me when we disagree and then act like you're position is obviously correct. Your conclusion is not consistent with your premises, and I'm also tired of saying the same thing dozens of ways.

 

[Rod1]

I don't want you to do anything, but don't quote me when we disagree and then act like you're position is obviously correct. Your conclusion is not consistent with your premises, and I'm also tired of saying the same thing dozens of ways.

Actually it is, you are fixated on race when the position has absolutely nothing to do with race. You have even conceded a little then gone full retard over and over again.

Its not about race, is about oppression.

Let me see if i can bore into your thick skull.

Are you familiar with the we are the 99% movement? basically its a movement against the uber rich.

Do you honestly thing a "We are the 1%" movement would be seen with good eyes instead of with complete mockery and disdain because of its elitism?

"But.. but.. white is my identity, whites cant be proud" whites can be proud of what they are, as people have mentioned before people are proud to be American an to belong to an european ethnicity

 

[dontsnitch]

Actually it is, you are fixated on race when the position has absolutely nothing to do with race. You have even conceded a little then gone full retard over and over again.

Its not about race, is about oppression.

Let me see if i can bore into your thick skull.

Are you familiar with the we are the 99% movement? basically its a movement against the uber rich.

Do you honestly thing a "We are the 1%" movement would be seen with good eyes instead of with complete mockery and disdain because of its elitism?

If it was about oppression, we can find all sorts of different races that have been oppressed. We can go to Europe to find oppression, to the Middle East, to Africa, and back to America.

There are two things wrong with this. For starters, you are declaring that everyone who proclaims they are proud does so because they associate it with oppression. You can't know that, and it's obviously not true. Secondly, just because you conclude that pride must be related to oppression to be acceptable doesn't make it so. That's just your subjective interpretation of what's right. Finally, even by this metric, we can find exceptions to where all races are able to proclaim pride in one region or another.

As far as I can tell, this is your argument:

1)You can only show pride in your race if X.
2)POC are X.
C)POC can show pride.

Despite the hurdle you need to clear in 1) which I've mentioned above, I can still show scenarios where 2) applies to white people and conversely does not apply to POC.

I can say that 2) POC are not X, and 2) white people are X, but when I do, you still refuse to acknowledge the natural conclusion C).

 

[Rod1]

If it was about oppression, we can find all sorts of different races that have been oppressed. We can go to Europe to find oppression, to the Middle East, to Africa, and back to America.

There are two things wrong with this. For starters, you are declaring that everyone who proclaims they are proud does so because they associate it with oppression. You can't know that, and it's obviously not true. Secondly, just because you conclude that pride must be related to oppression to be acceptable doesn't make it so. That's just your subjective interpretation of what's right. Finally, even by this metric, we can find exceptions to where all races are able to proclaim pride in one region or another.

As far as I can tell, this is your argument:

1)You can only show pride in your race if X.
2)POC are X.
C)POC can show pride.

Despite the hurdle you need to clear in 1) which I've mentioned above, I can still show scenarios where 2) applies to white people and conversely does not apply to POC.

I can say that 2) POC are not X, and 2) white people are X, but when I do, you still refuse to acknowledge the natural conclusion C).

You claimed Mexico and South Africa, in the first one its a joke, since Mexico is a hispanic country with hispanic laws and hispanic culture, therefore claiming that there is a spanish oppression is a joke, and by looking at the Mexican elite and the mexican media one can safely assume that euro-descendants are not oppressed, in fact its the opposite.

Meanwhile in Mexico the native culture was wiped off the face of the earth for the most part and dark skin is associated with poverty, ignorance and criminality.

And lastly, there is no such thing as a white identity in Mexico, white people are simple called gueros (blondes even if you have black hair and eyes), its a physical trait, like being a brunette.

Im not well versed on the affairs of South Africa but i have never seen one get flak for showing Afrikaner pride. It could be different in South Africa but then again South Africa still is a very divided country,@PrinceOfPain may be able to shed light about Afrikaner pride in South Africa.

Again, you will never get it, because you are so fixated on race, you are unable to see the context.

Everyone has already pointed out why you are wrong, if you want to believe you are right, then go ahead but you are swimming against the current.

 

[dontsnitch]

You claimed Mexico and South Africa, in the first one its a joke, since Mexico is a hispanic country with hispanic laws and hispanic culture, therefore claiming that there is a spanish oppression is a joke, and by looking at the Mexican elite and the mexican media one can safely assume that euro-descendants are not oppressed, in fact its the opposite.

Meanwhile in Mexico the native culture was wiped off the face of the earth for the most part and dark skin is associated with poverty, ignorance and criminality.

And lastly, there is no such thing as a white identity in Mexico, white people are simple called gueros (blondes even if you have black hair and eyes), its a physical trait, like being a brunette.

Im not well versed on the affairs of South Africa but i have never seen one get flak for showing Afrikaner pride. It could be different in South Africa but then again South Africa still is a very divided country,@PrinceOfPain may be able to shed light about Afrikaner pride in South Africa.

Again, you will never get it, because you are so fixated on race, you are unable to see the context.

Everyone has already pointed out why you are wrong, if you want to believe you are right, then go ahead but you are swimming against the current.

I showed you a simple syllogism. You can't just hand-wave it away because it doesn't suit you.

I've also explained why your definition of what is acceptable is just subjective. Why does pride have to be related to oppression? Because you say so? I reject that.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I agree with everything you've said here. White people were in the dark ages once and there was time when the Arabs (some might call them white, that's a whole other discussion, they weren't European) were kicking ass. The modern (in relative terms) father of algebra was from the Middle-East. I find that very specific period of Arab history very interesting, even venerable.

The problem is that today they are a backwards people. They should be ashamed for giving up what they had.

The Arabs were at the height of civilization at a time, then the storm from the east came in the form of Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes. They devastated Islamic civilization which still may not have recovered to this day. It's interesting to guess on what would have happened if Ogedei Khan had not drank himself into a coma. Subutai and the Mongols flattened eastern Europe and were poised to devastate the west, Europe would have looked a lot different if the Mongols kept pushing into western Europe.

Also Zheng He and his armada were 50 years ahead of the Europeans, if not for the Emperors decision to isolate the country they may have made it to the Americas before Columbus. In an instant the world could have been changed.

Understood on the rhetoric.

I think we're better looking, but again, that's just a personal preference. It also doesn't mean that ONLY white people are beautiful. I've had lovers who weren't white and in the WN community a lot of people would call me a "race traitor" for that. Do I give a shit? Not in the slightest.

As for the white race being greater, I think we've largely dominated the globe at least since the time of the Roman Empire. And I don't just mean in terms of power, I mean in terms of overall dominance. Someone had to do it, why not us? And if it wasn't us, it would've been someone else.

As the phrase goes: "It's good to be king." But if we're king, we should be a good one, and we should be fair and we should let love lead our steps.

Well that's debatable as the Parthian's more then held their own against the Romans militarily and culturaly. The Chinese also had great kingdoms and advances is science, philosophy, mathematics, warfare. Where us Europeans really moved forward was during the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. Before that it was pretty equal in Eurasia.

I think that if the black community as a whole--and I stress as a whole, because there are always people who go against the grain--were to embrace the importance of education then they would be in a different--and better--place today. The feeling of "I ain't raisin' no doctors and lawyers!" is not doing them any good.

Is it simple? No. I get that. I also get that the black community is where it is today because white people of the past made certain decisions. I get it. I agree with it. I'll even work within that reality. I just won't be told, "You can't be proud of what you are," because of some shit that happened in a past that I had nothing to do with.

Of course you can be proud of who you are, it just doesn't make sense for whites to have a Pride Movement that's equivalent to what the minorities struggle

Depends on if it's really arbitrary.

I mean, let's imagine you have two schools in the same district. One has superior test scores to the other. Should the school as a whole not feel some measure of pride about that?

So how about the kids in the superior school that performed below the curve, they did nothing, in fact hindered the schools average. Why should they have a sense of pride in their schools average?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I find the whole thing absurd. You're telling individuals they are or not allowed to show pride based on ancient history.

Why is it acceptable that brown people show pride in America? Is it general oppression or their minority status? Because they are neither oppressed in Mexico nor a minority there.

I'm not sure what you mean by ancient history? Yes there is historical context but there is also application in society today. Let's take your example of brown people in the Mexico. Mexico is what 80-90 percent Catholic? Over the centuries how many millions of indigenous Americans were slaughtered on behalf of a white god? The Spanish came and forced the natives at the end of a sword to bow before their white as snow, light haired, blue eyed Saviour. What do you think that did to the psyche of the indigenous Americans? You don't think that re-enforced the idea of white supremacy on them?

Today you still see it, a white god in every church and the ruling "class" (Leaders, Politicians, Celebrities) are mostly white Spanish with European ancestry.

 

[Rod1]

I showed you a simple syllogism. You can't just hand-wave it away because it doesn't suit you.

I've also explained why your definition of what is acceptable is just subjective. Why does pride have to be related to oppression? Because you say so? I reject that.

I didnt hand waved it, i pointed out the lack of veracity on the premise.

And of course you cant reject what i say but the fact remains that white pride is in no way socially acceptable.

 

[Rod1]

I'm not sure what you mean by ancient history? Yes there is historical context but there is also application in society today. Let's take your example of brown people in the Mexico. Mexico is what 80-90 percent Catholic? Over the centuries how many millions of indigenous Americans were slaughtered on behalf of a white god? The Spanish came and forced the natives at the end of a sword to bow before their white as snow, light haired, blue eyed Saviour. What do you think that did to the psyche of the indigenous Americans? You don't think that re-enforced the idea of white supremacy on them?

Today you still see it, a white god in every church and the ruling "class" (Leaders, Politicians, Celebrities) are mostly white Spanish with European ancestry.

You have no idea how christianity extended in the spanish empire, the whole enslaving and murdering was done by greedy Spanish oportunists, the church was the only one that actually cared about the natives.

Catholicism spread as usual, by hijacking local religious figures as the anticipation of a christian figure.

In the case of central Mexico, the virgin Mary took the mantle of the female earth god Tonantzin, in the Guadalupe myth.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'm not sure what you mean by ancient history? Yes there is historical context but there is also application in society today. Let's take your example of brown people in the Mexico. Mexico is what 80-90 percent Catholic? Over the centuries how many millions of indigenous Americans were slaughtered on behalf of a white god? The Spanish came and forced the natives at the end of a sword to bow before their white as snow, light haired, blue eyed Saviour. What do you think that did to the psyche of the indigenous Americans? You don't think that re-enforced the idea of white supremacy on them?

Today you still see it, a white god in every church and the ruling "class" (Leaders, Politicians, Celebrities) are mostly white Spanish with European ancestry.

Right, so by this metric, we need not look further than the people in Europe that were also colonized throughout history. If we are judging individuals by the history of their people, everyone is going to be oppressed.

What do we do in countries like Liberia that were colonized by other African people? This whole endeavor quickly devolves into absurdity. As if me showing pride in myself has anything to do with what happened hundreds of years ago. If you build a syllogism, I can fill it with any people, race, or ethnicity to match your criteria as I did above.

I'll also make the same comment as I did above-- Just because you want to define pride as being morally acceptable only in the event that it's tied to oppression doesn't mean that it's objectively true. It seems obvious to me that pride is about yourself, and not your ancestors. Such a premise is not axiomatic, and I can simply reject it out of hand. What we are left with is your personal interpretation of what is acceptable, and one which I disagree with. You are not right simply by stating this as a fact, and neither am I, although I consider my view much more consistent.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

The Arabs were at the height of civilization at a time, then the storm from the east came in the form of Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes. They devastated Islamic civilization which still may not have recovered to this day.

I think it was on the Hardcore History podcast where I heard that Salafism was rooted in the Mongolia raids. The raides were so brutal and many of the Mongols converted to Islam so it was like a defense to the Mongola.

 

[dontsnitch]

I didnt hand waved it, i pointed out the lack of veracity on the premise.

And of course you cant reject what i say but the fact remains that white pride is in no way socially acceptable.

It's your own premise. You provide me with your syllogism, and I'll fill it with any race.

You're also just stating your definition of what's acceptable as fact, when it's simply your interpretation which I reject.

 

[Rod1]

It's your own premise. You provide me with your syllogism, and I'll fill it with any race.

You're also just stating your definition of what's acceptable as fact, when it's simply your interpretation which I reject.

You can show pride in belonging to a culture.
Black is a culture.
Ergo you can show pride in being black.

 

[Rod1]

I think it was on the Hardcore History podcast where I heard that Salafism was rooted in the Mongolia raids. The raides were so brutal and many of the Mongols converted to Islam so it was like a defense to the Mongola.

Salafism is not old, its from the second half of the XIX century, thats why its so retarded, because it basically a modern interpretation of how muslims supposedly lived 1000 years ago.

 

[dontsnitch]

You can show pride in belonging to a culture.
Black is a culture.
Ergo you can show pride in being black.

Just because you decide that you can only show pride in belonging to a culture and then proclaim that a skin colour is a culture doesn't prove anything.

It's also an obvious bait-n-switch, because there are black people who are proud of their skin colour, which is attached to their heritage, and not just their culture. Otherwise, white people could be proud black men.

Plus, I can make up a syllogism, too:

You can show pride in skin colour.
White is a skin colour.
Ergo you can show pride in being white.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Salafism is not old, its from the second half of the XIX century, thats why its so retarded, because it basically a modern interpretation of how muslims supposedly lived 1000 years ago.

Yeah I know. I just think it's interesting to see how much influence the Mongols had even today.

Just for reference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah

 

[Thunderflash500]

White pride is important to maintain the privileges our ancestors fought for. Male pride is another issue that people mock. But if you don't at some point step in, you will be oppressed. People think women will act kindly if they get in power positions because they know what it means to be oppressed. The truth is the opposite. If men don't fight for equality, they will lose it. We already see kangaroo courts on college campuses targeting men. You might laugh, but those men lose out on an education, thousands of dollars are wasted, and their reputations are destroyed. Because of witch hunts. The same thing will happen with race. I'm not saying the issue out of control, but it certainly can happen. We don't need to start acting crazy, but simply being aware of racial issues is not wrong.