Is it a good or bad thing to be a white nationalist? #asknostr
Discussion
I don't care what color you are; if your nationalism supports centralization of power, it's a bad thing... 😠😡🤬🤮
What if the nation supports a decentralized system in different form of life but just within their own jurisdiction?
Good question, Fren; thanks for asking🙏💖😀
Can you show me anything ***remotely*** like that?🤔
All existing nation-states claim the specious "right" to use violent force and coercion to control the population in a territory. I find this immorally, utterly unacceptable.
There is a better, slowly advancing way:
https://peakd.com/kingdom/@creatr/the-state-or-god-s-kingdom-a-comparison-chart
"States use violence and coercion. Here, worship this deity that brags about killing children for mocking a bald man that he liked." 🤣
This is what I believe in
I despise racism or any sort of bigotry whatsoever, BUT... I think they get a (very) slightly worse rap than they should. Of course, there is simple ignorance and the fact that they have fallen for fear-based propaganda, but they have a nugget of truth.
If the world continues the way it is going, traditional cultures will slowly disappear, along with skin colors. I'm a hard pragmatist with little use for tradition, and I don't care what color the people of the world are, but even I see that it might be nice to preserve some of that.
If we were conserving a savannah and the plains zebras kept mating with the Grant's zebras, I think it would be perfectly natural to want to at least encourage some of the animals to mate with their kind so that we don't lose the line altogether.
Taken with a heaping spoon of salt, I understand their fear.
Exactly. I feel the same. Why should a lion not be proud of its mane and its other incredible and unique genetic traits? I think the same is true for humans. It's only very recently that we have denied that we are loyal to our ethnicities.
What does nationalism mean to you? that your country is the greatest on Earth simply because you happen to have been born there?
Definition of nationalism:
ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
I don’t care what color you are, I don’t need more statists in my life.
That definition doesn't sound too bad to me. But I definitely don't like statism either
So you think people should put the needs of their government before their owns needs, the needs of their family, or the needs of their interest groups?
huh?
basically zero nationalists of any color put the needs of their government before their own needs and the needs of their family.
Are you sure? What about soldiers that die for their country and leave their families fatherless?
No one actually dies for their country. They die to grow the wealth of the ruling class. Believing that they are dying for their country doesn't actually mean they have died for the benefit of anyone in that country. No pleb in America benefited from a single soldier's death in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There seems to be confusion between the actual definition of a nationalist and what people think nationalists are.
Afghanistan and Iraq are cherry picked though. I don't think you can say the same for every war throughout history. Yeah maybe I have a more idealised version of nationalism.
Every war since America's "independence," has been a bankers war as far as I understand. Certainly every war since WW1 has been to serve the interests of the ruling class and to harm the citizens.
I agree with that. But still a small section of history. And some people, like the Palestinians, are justly fighting back. Deaths in resistance to the bankers are for the people
They're fighting back for their homes and land. Not necessarily for a flag. Sure their cultural roots are similar and so they take pride in a shared identity. It's human nature to be tribalistic. But nationalism is a relatively new phenomena. People didn't always have national pride in the past.
I don't think whether or not the wars were organized and instigated by bankers it means the people that fought and died in them weren't nationalists.
"I read your responses but I don't actually have the courage to respond to you directly" 😂
Well yeah. Otherwise I could justify stealing from my neighbour to feed my family. I still believe in society and government to some degree. There needs to be rules that people agree on and follow. And it helps if those people are ethnically similar, and therefore have the sake values, which goes back to my original post.
So you don't think there is another way to prevent neighbors from robbing each other without having a government rob everyone?
Well if rather the government be more like America 100 years ago than America today. Both are still governments. But one is better and robs citizens less. I don't believe we can go to literally zero government. Especially not in the short term.
So you believe that in order to achieve a peaceful and healthy society, we need to give a group the power to rob and murder us?
No. But we need to follow rules. How can we decide on the rules without some sort of governance? Bitcoin is technically a government that enforces rules. I mean it more in that way.
You can establish rules peacefully in your neighborhood without the need for taxation and a police force. HOAs do this all the time. They have security, even if it's just a gated community. They have certain rules that can lead to fines or eviction when violated. In a free market, you can find the type of neighborhood that fits your needs. If you need less security because you have guns and dogs, then you can save money. If you have a family, then maybe you wanna pay more for a more secure neighborhood with a security car driving around. I've lived in a community with a security car patrolling at night. Whatever service you need, you can find it cheaper and more efficient in the open market.
I agree totally. But fines and evictions are basically the same as taxation and policing. So just decentralised government?
But it's voluntary. You aren't forced to live there. When you move in to that neighborhood, you agree to their rules. In the world today, you don't agree to anything. It's forced upon you simply based on where you were born which you have no control over.
Oh well we want the same thing then haha
Yeah basically. That you are proud and grateful of everything your ancestors did for you. And you want to preserve it for future generations. Obviously it helps if they genuinely did great things.
But what if your principles are to care about what brand you are? Like the Palestinians for example. They deserve to preserve their race and culture
I wouldnt consider that to be principles. Because if you put 'brand' above all else, that's how we had things like slavery. Or what Israel is currently doing to Palestinians. Or what the US has done to numerous countries the past 25 years (and longer).
But if Palestinians were 'racist' and didn't let the Jews come in after WW2, then they wouldn't be getting genocided now? I get your point ofc but it goes both ways. You might not care about race, but someone else does.
The Palestinians didnt have a choice. The early Zionists took it by force, with the backing of UK and the US. It was a very violent conquest.
Israel cares about race and is the perfect example of everything wrong with entho-nationalism
"Practicing ones race and culture" != "nationalism". The latter is an entirely different thing.
why should it be a good or bad thing?
it's just a fact that people would prefer to live around others who are culturally and ethnically similar to themselves.
I genuinely think a lot of people disagree. Some are big believers in multi-culturalism. And others specifically dont like the idea of white people wanted to live amongst eachother
it's extremely weird. I lived in Japan for a very long time and it's completely normal to them to prefer to live among other Japanese people.
"OF COURSE you're uncomfortable around lots of people who are not similar to yourself"
as long as you're melanistic that's considered cultural pride. it's only if you're white that it's racist.
but white nationalism usually implies that you want to forcibly expel/do violence to people who aren't white. I don't support violence except in extreme cases.
Yeah exactly. And some of that is propaganda btw. But that's it. People just feel more comfortable among their own kind. And societies generally thrive more
I don't understand why leftists insist on multiculturalism.
I agree that its a learning experience for everyone however.
but it's not a socially stable situation, which is why large cities naturally divide up into ethnic neighborhoods.
To an extent, yes -- but people also like having the opportunity to enjoy other cultures around them. White people like getting sushi, or going to Mexican restaurants, listening to K-Pop, watching anime, etc... All "multiculturalism"
And let's be clear, "white nationalism" in most contexts means "white people run the country." That's an entirely different thing from (say) separatism, or just sticking to one's own ethnic community.
Bad. That's race. American Nationalist is fine. But white nationalist means you want a nation of whites. Which is inherently racist.
I don't want certain cultural values to change in my community. some of these cultural values are very important for my safety. if my community gets an influx of outsiders and it happens too fast for assimilation to take place, the culture may change in ways that are harmful to me.
I can tell myself that it's not my race that matters, it's my cultural values. but I don't see everyone else in the world doing that. most cultures will use their race as a team to a greater degree than mine. a white nationalist is just a person who chooses to do what he sees almost everyone else doing.
how else are we supposed to prevent assimilation from being bypassed, so that our cultural values will not be changed by outsiders in harmful ways?
The problem is, "culture" is an inherently shifting and malleable thing. Culture changes, even with the same group, over time. Culture changes inevitably as ideas are borrowed, mixed, synthesized, etc.
What even is "white" culture? East coast Anglo-Saxon descendents? Italians? Irish? Fair-skinned Mexican people descended from Spaniards?
There are some really good videos on that question by Eric Aarvoll on YouTube if you are interested. He dates white people back 10s of thousands of years
Not going to watch some 2 hour YouTubes.
Yes, if we're just defining "white" as "people with low melanin", yes they've been around 10's of thousands of years.
But I have far more in common with (say) an Asian immigrant who grew up in California and speaks English than some Russian oilfield operator in Siberia... even if we're both "white".
Fair enough
this is a dangerously stupid argument. there are people who will say "what even is culture, italians and irish are so different already, we can just flood your little town with 30,000 haitians in the space of three years." and then it is done.
I am not accusing you of using the argument like that. but we both know what's going on, and there are reasonable individuals who look at it and say "these idiots are trying to kill me. I might as well become a nazi." and that's what happens to them.
30,000 Haitian immigrants doesn't do anything on its own to prevent you from living your own life or practice your own culture.
I'm all for migration to be natural and market-driven, and I think part of the issue with some of these huge pockets of immigration is that State authorities are putting a finger on the map and saying "you go here"...
But at the same time, as many in this thread have declared to be a "good thing", 1st generation immigrant cultures tend to want to self-associate, so it's not surprising that this happens.
"White genocide" is the dumbest idea every. European colonists and later Americans 99% of the Native American population over the course of 200 years... Nothing like that is happening to "white" people.
I should say "decimated 99%..."
This is an extreme exaggeration based on overestimates of of the pre-colonisation population.
In any case what is a Native American? Seminoles and Comanches are different people with different cultures so it doesn't matter if millions of White people colonise their land. By your logic, that wouldn't affect how they live their lives or practice their culture... Right?
It's a very, very bad thing IMHO. It combines two forms of collectivism, racism and nationalism, and centers it around the made-up ethnicity of "(American) white."
It's the supporting ideology for slavery, genocide of indigenous people, and American Imperial hegemony.
So yeah... not good.
What about the good things white Americans did?
That's great. People who are Americans who have white skin have done good things.
"White nationalism" means you think they should rule America. Is that your position?
Probably yes
OK... define "white"
Someone of European ancestry and heritage
Great, so Mexican illegal immigrants?
Haitian immigrants?
Afghan refugees?
What are you asking me?
An Afghan refugee has "European heritage" because her ancestors migrated from Europe 2000 years ago.
Does she get to "run America" under the "white nationalism" system you advocate?
No. I don't think a mexican illegal immigrant, a Haitian immigrant or an Afghan refugee should run America? Or any other majority white country. I don't see why that's crazy to see. I also don't think an Italian should run Nigeria or that an Englishman should run south Korea.
But you haven't answered the question of what, *legally* defines "white". In the way that excludes the Afghan refugee.
Or do we just pick a King based on ... Vibes?
Does Nigeria *legally* define black or Nigerian every time they select their leader? It's just not that good a question tbh.
No, but they have some legal system for deciding who becomes a President. An election, with eligibility criteria, etc. Same with Japan, or Europe, or any other advanced nation. And those nations don't have "racial" requirements.
Birthright citizenship, having one's family be in the USA for X number of years... etc. Those are possible criteria.
Quite weird to deny that white people exist tbh
I'm not denying that white people exist. I'm saying that, if what you're describing as an optimum system in which you place "white people" in charge, there should presumably be some hard and fast definition for who exactly a "white" person is... right?
Otherwise who gets to decide who runs the government? On what criteria?
Well it's perhaps too late now. But I would have immigration and remigration policies that favoured people of white European heritage. And then have a more meritocratic society. That is more or less how America operated before WW2. Which was also when it was at its peak as a nation. Btw, if I was Japanese or Indian, I would favour native people via government policy too.
"Indian" is like 200 different languages, and at least as many distinct "cultures".
Even "Japanese" includes multiple sub-ethnic groups. Who gets to be "favored"?
Let's not pretend that a white European or black African is running Japan. Come on now 😂 You are being deliberately obtuse at this point
It is not a crime to want to remain the majority in a country being invaded by those you actively get gaslit into believing are the "minority," both racially and culturally.
I have written more but here's a digestible extract:
(...) I also support rightwing political ideas. What is good about that? I like my nation mainly because of its people, my tribe. I like areas within the state, such as places and neighborhoods. I cherish the people I have met, connections loving and deep, making me feel loved and supported like a functional family would. Each spacial level contributes to my overall nationalist sense of belonging. I am curently not part of a group or community in the tribal sense - a circumstance resulting in fragilily and disorientation. Living loosely subjugates my wellbeing and life prospects, especially when approaching later life stages. Being close to people with similar outer (skin color) and inner (personality, values) attributes provides a sense of ease, coherance and affiliation I would likely not have elsewhere. Even though I am detached personally, I may observe people interact in ways I recognize thereby deriving a sense of belonging that feels achievable. In times of hardship and isolation, this has brought moments of relief. Such notions of connectedness provide hope and potentially meaning, fostering health and healing. (...) Minding the wellbeing of "our people" feels closest to taking care of ourselves. This is why acting as a nationalist is a healthy, functional state of being. We get to locate and validate ourselves within our tribe and stand together confident, strong and united.
Bad? It could be bad if we forget that we are also individuals that may have different needs than our tribe / nation, requiring the occasional shift in priorities. Being a nationalist in my book does not equate with putting the nation above all else. It does not even mean thinking one and one's nation are fundamentally better than others' - that would be a white supremacist. Nationalism for the most part is the modern default route to integration within the species of men, it being one of the larger concentric circles of the social self.
Well said
There are many different flavours of nationalism.
Nationalism, if defined as an attachment to an imagined community of shared fate, promotes pro-social, altruistic and responsible behaviour.
It is not, alas, the only form.