• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How many White Nationalists are on RF?

What is your view of White Nationalism?

  • I believe in a White Race and/or a White Nation and that they face a number of threats

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • I don't believe in a White Race/Nation but sympathise with WN arguments

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am a Nationalist but NOT a White Nationalist

    Votes: 7 13.5%
  • I am not a White Nationalist.

    Votes: 36 69.2%
  • I am a former or ex-White Nationalist who changed their minds.

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Other (explain if you wish)

    Votes: 6 11.5%

  • Total voters
    52

qaz

Member
aside from this issue - which involves rude, obtuse racism - i think one must go through that phase of empathy with thinkers as spengler, toynbee, huizinga , ortega y gasset... and then get rid of them.
 

Tomyris

Esoteric Traditionalist
*long sigh*


I question why you are surprised. White Nationalism is unsystematic thought. It's somewhat embarrassing, really. It evolved from the attempts to keep the African population of the United States enslaved, and doesn't have much to do with legitimate nationalist or traditionalist through because it's an ex post facto justification for the United States to simultaneously deracinate white ethnics and preserve the institution of slavery. It's an ideology fit to a single society which has become mass-marketed across the caucasian nations of the globe... By such things as rock bands and pirate radio. Its intellectuals are not systematic and those they claim as their own like Enoch Powell really never are. The closest thing to a serious work of literature endorsing their cause is The Camp of the Saints, but even that is not really in congruence with white nationalist belief and of course has serious and profound problems in its dealings with the reality of other cultures which show an author more interested in political polemic than in providing a philosophical framework for a movement. It would be quite odd for any white nationalist to actually be on a forum like this which strongly cracks down on trolling and improper language.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is not about shaming people but is about hopefully making it easier to discuss the subject of race on both sides. I think the value here is simply figuring out how many White Nationalists are on RF, accepting that there is a presence on here (I think) and how we interact with them. Simply shaming and humiliating people, no matter how unacceptable their views are, will not change their minds especially if there are legitimate grievances feeding a problematic ideology. the attraction of extreme ideologies often comes from a refusal by mainstream politics to accept that certain problems exist combined with personal grievances that mean a person feels their voice cannot be ignored. Calling someone a fascist is not an insult to someone who believes in fascism. the discussion has to go beyond simply condemning people and trying to find ways to win them back over from extreme points of view.

Voted "I am not a White Nationalist".

I don't know if there are any white nationalists on the site, but I've occasionally come across (more so when I was younger) those who might be considered paleo-conservative racists - which, at one time, represented the "mainstream" of America. Many of them were born and raised prior to the Civil Rights era, although very few were ever all that extreme about it. Of course, the tide of public opinion eventually turned against them, and public policies also followed suit. The Civil Rights movement gained momentum, and many of the institutions of the "old order" came crashing down.

If you're wondering now what would be a good method to "win back over" white nationalists of today, then it might be worthwhile to explore what worked in earlier eras to turn public opinion into supporting the Civil Rights movement.

However, one difference today is that most of those calling themselves "white nationalists" were mostly born and raised after the Civil Rights movement. They have no memories of the Jim Crow era or other such policies which were prevalent back before they were born. What they have seen is only the aftermath. Some might argue that, as whites, they're being unfairly blamed for the sins of their fathers, so their "white nationalism" is only a matter of self-defense. To be sure, there are a lot of people who hate whites, as well as those who single out "white males" as some kind of evil beast, which puts anyone who happens to have been born "white" and "male" on the defensive, even if they haven't done anything wrong. This is how the seed gets planted.

Another key difference between then and now was that most racism in America was pretty open and easily exposed. When people saw pictures of "white only" drinking fountains - or cops lined up with dogs to attack Civil Rights marchers - that was pretty blatant. Most people with a sense of moral conscience decried such actions and policies as fundamentally and egregiously wrong. Since then, people who have racist inclinations have had to hide and conceal their thoughts and feelings. As a result, anti-racists have shifted their strategy to going after "stealth" racists. This has led to an atmosphere of labeling people as "racists" willy-nilly, even if they deny that they are racists. Unless people openly admit that they're racist, then people have to guess. The problem with guessing is that most of the time guesses are wrong, which leads to wild accusations, heated rhetoric, and sometimes even violence.

We've also seen a rise in identity politics in which various ethnic, racial, and gender-oriented groups band together based solely on that. A "white nationalist" might justify his/her position based on society's acceptance of others sharing a racial identity. Just as an example, "Black History Month" seems to be a popular target, at which point they might ask: Why is there no "White History Month"? Things like that are a slam dunk for the "white nationalist" side, since society can't really answer these kinds of questions honestly. If society is going to embrace identity politics, then the same standard has to be applied to all - or else it won't really work in the long run. A better solution might be to just abandon identity politics altogether. If we truly want an egalitarian society, then equality must mean equality - no ifs, ands, or buts.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I question why you are surprised. White Nationalism is unsystematic thought. It's somewhat embarrassing, really. It evolved from the attempts to keep the African population of the United States enslaved, and doesn't have much to do with legitimate nationalist or traditionalist through because it's an ex post facto justification for the United States to simultaneously deracinate white ethnics and preserve the institution of slavery. It's an ideology fit to a single society which has become mass-marketed across the caucasian nations of the globe... By such things as rock bands and pirate radio. Its intellectuals are not systematic and those they claim as their own like Enoch Powell really never are. The closest thing to a serious work of literature endorsing their cause is The Camp of the Saints, but even that is not really in congruence with white nationalist belief and of course has serious and profound problems in its dealings with the reality of other cultures which show an author more interested in political polemic than in providing a philosophical framework for a movement. It would be quite odd for any white nationalist to actually be on a forum like this which strongly cracks down on trolling and improper language.

my post was meant as a joke about the fact SF was saying there isn't any diversity of political opinions on here as "my message" as a commie, but obviously missed its target. Otherwise I agree with you and I'll have to look into the Camp of the Saints as reading material on the subject. :)
 

Tomyris

Esoteric Traditionalist
my post was meant as a joke about the fact SF was saying there isn't any diversity of political opinions on here as "my message" as a commie, but obviously missed its target. Otherwise I agree with you and I'll have to look into the Camp of the Saints as reading material on the subject. :)

The Camp of the Saints is incredibly and profoundly offensive to Indians and the Hindu religion and at times extremely explicit, grotesquely so; it cannot be recommended except to a scholar. Conversely it is the closest thing to an intellectual argument White Nationalism has -- but even it departs from the precepts of white nationalism. The military unit defending the area around Toulon - Marseilles under interpretation of ambiguous orders from the government is portrayed with a lyrical elegance of the grim humour and defiance of doomed men and their cause is noble, but they have Évolué allies (nonwhite culturally integrated Frenchmen) who fight hard at their side, and of course the depiction of the invaders is absurd to the point of farce in addition to being profoundly offensive. White nationalists tend to praise the novel despite the presence of nonwhite heroes, conversely it used to be far more acceptable in mainstream conservative circles than it is now, with William F. Buckley Jr. and other such mainstream conservative luminaries praising it at the time it came out, and some environmentalists treating it as a warning of the chaos of a Malthusian future rather than a racialism focused philosophical-polemical novel. Raspail is too complicated to call a White Nationalist himself, but his deeply flawed novel is probably the best way to understand the modern thought of WN's without directly involving oneself with them.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
my post was meant as a joke about the fact SF was saying there isn't any diversity of political opinions on here as "my message" as a commie, but obviously missed its target. Otherwise I agree with you and I'll have to look into the Camp of the Saints as reading material on the subject. :)
Camp of the Saints is a stupid book. Just sayin'.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I wouldn't be so rude to say anything, just keep my mouth shut and pray that it ends.
It sends my head spinning trying to keep up with how fast their mouths must move to speak it. It sounds hideous and since I don't speak it means nothing to me. I suppose if there is subliminal attachment it would be from fishing. Mexicans like to fish. Everywhere they fish they speak Spanish and leave piles of garbage. So when I hear Spanish I think of their piles of garbage.
And when I read **** like this I think of dilapidated, roach infested trailers with confederate flags draped over the windows and rusted car parts strewn across unkept lawns.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you really saying that having pride in my language is worse than having pride in my race or color? I could care less about race, but language is largely a nationality thing.
No, I'm saying that there are many people who simply don't speak English and have no need to. For everyday living in East Europe, it is better to learn Russian, French, German or even sometimes Turkish.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
No, I'm saying that there are many people who simply don't speak English and have no need to. For everyday living in East Europe, it is better to learn Russian, French, German or even sometimes Turkish.
Check this article out.
"While English is in fact the most popular second language (44 countries primarily learn English as a second language), the following maps, created by MoveHub, a company that helps people relocate abroad, show just how diverse the world still is."
Fascinating maps reveal each country's surprising second language
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Check this article out.
"While English is in fact the most popular second language (44 countries primarily learn English as a second language), the following maps, created by MoveHub, a company that helps people relocate abroad, show just how diverse the world still is."
Fascinating maps reveal each country's surprising second language
I'm not sure this is what I'm talking about, because it says:

For example, the US' second language is Spanish, while Canada's is French, the UK's is Polish, and Australia's is Mandarin.

In the UK Polish is the most common second language spoken because the majority of our immigrants are Polish; not because people learn it. Most kids here learn French, German. Spanish or Italian at school. Likewise Australia and Mandarin. Also that map shows Romania's second most common being Uralic (i.e Hungarian in this case) because Hungary is right next door and Romania has the Secui people, who are a small Hungarian group who have lived there for years and still speak Hungarian. Most Romanians don't actually speak Hungarian.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I'm not sure this is what I'm talking about, because it says:

For example, the US' second language is Spanish, while Canada's is French, the UK's is Polish, and Australia's is Mandarin.

In the UK Polish is the most common second language spoken because the majority of our immigrants are Polish; not because people learn it. Most kids here learn French, German. Spanish or Italian at school. Likewise Australia. Also that map shows Romania's second most common being Uralic (i.e Hungarian in this case) because Hungary is right next door and they have the Secui people, who are a Hungarian group who have lived there for years and still speak Hungarian/
The article goes more with my meaning, didn't mean to use such a broad qualifier before, I already knew how popular Mandarin is for an example of a popular language. The countries you named already know English.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Some don't even make an effort to learn English if they don't have to and I have cousins where there kids go into school not knowing a word of English, which isn't normal even outside the Us, everyone learns English.
People who do international business and service staff in touristy areas learn English. Elsewhere, not so much.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It would be quite odd for any white nationalist to actually be on a forum like this which strongly cracks down on trolling and improper language.

They're here, as are the racists.

But you are correct. They have to tone down their responses in this venue.

I just read a comment from one poster left a few days ago and a few pages back basically supporting the right of white nationalists to express themselves with no evidence that he objected to their message. When you (presumably) or I acknowledge such a right, we generally indicate that we don't approve of the message, but recognize the dangers in allowing the government to criminalize such speech - perhaps with a cliché like, "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it." Not that time.

The post got one "like" from a poster that consistently likes anything conservative. I'm fairly confident that they both fit into the category that we are discussing.
 

Tomyris

Esoteric Traditionalist
They're here, as are the racists.

But you are correct. They have to tone down their responses in this venue.

I just read a comment from one poster left a few days ago and a few pages back basically supporting the right of white nationalists to express themselves with no evidence that he objected to their message. When you (presumably) or I acknowledge such a right, we generally indicate that we don't approve of the message, but recognize the dangers in allowing the government to criminalize such speech - perhaps with a cliché like, "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it." Not that time.

The post got one "like" from a poster that consistently likes anything conservative. I'm fairly confident that they both fit into the category that we are discussing.

Well, I'd consider the dividing line between a strict racist and someone with a healthy love of the distinctiveness of their national culture to be a single very easy question to ask -- "do you accept and support the legal right of miscegenation between two lawful and integrated but racially different individuals in your society?" A racist is a person who opposes Abram Petrovich Gannibal marrying into the Russian nobility solely on account of the fact he is African; but someone who opposes the end of ethnic community in their society is not a racist if they acknowledge the fact that community may have general racial traits but those traits are not and cannot be a prerequisite for membership in that community. I use that example mainly because some fringe figures like Derbyshire are outright married to Asians while being incredibly racist toward Africans; I sardonically call that Neanderthal supremacy rather than white supremacy, since there's actually very little genetic difference between caucasians and east Asians and we're both descended from the Neanderthals in part. Since racists fixate on Africans and the Hebrews, it's best to phrase the question in those terms explicitly if you really want to filter traditionalist conservatism away from racialist ideologies.

Speaking as a traditionalist conservative, of course.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
People who do international business and service staff in touristy areas learn English. Elsewhere, not so much.

Well, to be fair, over here you can pretty much kiss your chances of landing a top-paying job goodbye if you don't know English. There are exceptions, of course, but it's the case for so many fields that you might as well consider it the general rule.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I do not think that is what national pride is supposed to be here in USA. We should be proud of the concept America is founded on, which is that anyone can become an American and that you choose what you will be. You aren't told what to be by your heritage. You might come here as a Mexican, but you can become an American. Conversely you cannot go to Mexico and become a Mexican or go to many other places and become naturalized. Although some other countries are adopting this practice, it is an American thing and something that has to be maintained; so its not just something somebody else did. Another thing to be proud of is our maintenance of many freedoms. Though its soldiers who do the fighting and the dying in wars etc., regular citizens also do our part to keep up the concept of America. Just because we aren't dying doesn't mean we have no part in defending good ideas. The idea of wealth creation, of becoming wealthy without making other people poor is an American idea. Its something important that is peculiarly part of the American experiment. So you can have your house, your car, your life without pushing other people down. That is American.

Laudable things, definitely, but I think not so unique as you think. These ideas, of being able to move to a country and be of it, and the idea of becoming wealthy without oppressing others, are neither originally (as far as I am aware) nor uniquely American. They're really too vague to be!
 
Top