Author Topic: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings  (Read 6592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,599
    • Army.ca
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2019, 15:55:02 »
Society as a whole seems to think about it the way you do as well. That has led us to the point where a very small minority of white men are lashing out at being told(or perceiving they are being told) they can't express "pride" in their race, or ancestral origins.

That's like saying I won't worry about the low tire pressure warning light on my dash until the check engine light gets fixed. Sure it's not an immediate problem, but it will come back to bite you in the end.


There it is. And why should we accept the moniker, when no one else has to? We're agreeing to our own pillory. Big talkers afraid to tackle a simple grammar problem. Let the liars beat you down instead. Attack the messenger instead of doing something about it.

I'm Canadian, not European. I was raised a christian, but don't subscribe to any religion now. The colour of my skin is something I had no control over, but I'm not ashamed of it and never will be.

I don't give a real rat's *** about how the term may have been used before, but I reserve the right to use the word in the same sense as everyone else.

Others can sit back and take, what I see as abuse, racism and inequality, or you can stand up and say "Bullshit, I won't accept your label, nor can you change the meaning of words by proceeding them with a colour, race or religion."

If you want to subscribe that it was white supremacists that defined the word, instead of co-opting it, then all that followed black, red, yellow, Canadian, US or China would need to concede the first usage of the word nationalist/ pride is racist and all that used it afterwards were supremacists of their own order. It's stupid to take the meaning of the phrase for anything other than what the writer or speaker intends to ascribe to it.

Besides, I just might identify as a green dog. You have to accept that as fact.

No? Then tell me again why you are right and I am wrong.

I know what side I fall on and I won't walk the line to make some feel like they know what they are talking about. Fence sitters are like zombie minions. I make no apologies and I'm done trying to explain it.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,599
    • Army.ca
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2019, 16:17:28 »
Hey Guys,

Sorry to interject again I just can't resist following your debate.

Fishbone you said "I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares."

I strongly agree with you but this is in direct contradiction to White Nationalist beliefs which is what you claim to be.

Again by definition a White Nationalist is " a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

A White Nationalist by definition is concerned only with race (white) whereas an American/Canadian Nationalists are distinguishing by country.

But again its wordplay because a Nationalist who is white is not a "White Nationalist". The "White" in "White Nationalist" denotes the nation(whites) of the type of nationalist being referred to and not the race of the person that is being called a White Nationalist.

Interestingly though, a nationalist is "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation..." Therefore  a White Nationalist would have to be a person who is white but a Nationalist whom is white is not necessarily a White Nationalist!





See, the problem here is that you still subscribe to the notion that "white nationalism" is a bad thing, as defined by ne'er do wells and supremacists and wiki, but any other kind of nationalism is OK. Now why would that be? You like that label? If it's not nipped in the bud, it will become the norm and everyone will wear the label.

I'm saying I won't accept one meaning for Caucasians and another for everyone else when the same wordings are used.

I'm fighting this and don't accept that we have to sit back and accept this.

In my mind, if you aren't willing to stand and say, "you are not hanging that label on me. It's wrong and racist" you are part of the perpetuation of this grievance.

I will not go quietly into this goodnight. I will not let someone label me or tell me what I have to believe.

I am not enamored with the status quo.

You guys can continue to think it's OK, and that I'm wrong, but I won't. It is wrong and I'm doing something about it in my own way. At least I'm trying, instead of bitching people out as racist and walking away. Maybe I'm just have a Don Quixote moment, who knows, but I feel strongly on this and believe it's a wrong that needs to righted.

Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline TechCrmn

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2019, 16:21:57 »
All I'm saying is when I stumbled upon this thread I had to Google the meaning of Nationalist and have no predispositions for or against the term White Nationalist nor do I wish to label anyone as one. If you take the actual meaning of the term which  by the way is what "everyone else uses". Then you are describing a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other races. It's not my place to say this is a bad thing or not, all I can say is that the beliefs you are claiming to support and what a White Nationalist is are not the same thing. It's irrelevant what "you think" the term means because I just told you what the term means several times and that's what "everyone else" knows the term to mean also. If you want to go around calling yourself a White Nationalist and claiming it means something totally different then the actual definition, then that's your prerogative.

 I mean you can even google White Nationalism - "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation."

This is almost identical to the literal definition I mentioned several times previously, I have no idea what definition of the word you are referring to that does not involve race or exclusion of other races but these are the definitions that people not involved in the discussion will find, thus what you will be labelled as. No one else is labeling you as anything, your are labeling yourself! How can you not see this!?

« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 16:49:13 by TechCrmn »

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 27,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 407
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2019, 16:40:03 »

There it is. And why should we accept the moniker, when no one else has to? We're agreeing to our own pillory. Big talkers afraid to tackle a simple grammar problem. Let the liars beat you down instead. Attack the messenger instead of doing something about it.

I'm Canadian, not European. I was raised a christian, but don't subscribe to any religion now. The colour of my skin is something I had no control over, but I'm not ashamed of it and never will be.

I don't give a real rat's *** about how the term may have been used before, but I reserve the right to use the word in the same sense as everyone else.

Others can sit back and take, what I see as abuse, racism and inequality, or you can stand up and say "Bullshit, I won't accept your label, nor can you change the meaning of words by proceeding them with a colour, race or religion."

If you want to subscribe that it was white supremacists that defined the word, instead of co-opting it, then all that followed black, red, yellow, Canadian, US or China would need to concede the first usage of the word nationalist/ pride is racist and all that used it afterwards were supremacists of their own order. It's stupid to take the meaning of the phrase for anything other than what the writer or speaker intends to ascribe to it.

Besides, I just might identify as a green dog. You have to accept that as fact.

No? Then tell me again why you are right and I am wrong.

I know what side I fall on and I won't walk the line to make some feel like they know what they are talking about. Fence sitters are like zombie minions. I make no apologies and I'm done trying to explain it.

I think I didn't explain myself quite well enough.

I was not saying I agree with the way society at large views things. I completely disagree with the idea of "white guilt", I also disagree with the idea that we should punish, or judge a whole group of people based on the actions of individuals. Nobody alive today should be held accountable for the real or perceived wrongs of history that occured before they were born.

I was simply stating that society has helped to push a specific group of people to the margins, and those people are starting to push back in the only way they feel they can get the attention of the world, and respect of their small echo chamber of like minded people. The more we push people into the dark corners of the internet, and tell them they are "wrong" because of the colour of their skin, religious belief, or the sexual organs they posess we will keep seeing this kind of attack.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,599
    • Army.ca
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2019, 17:51:41 »
All I'm saying is when I stumbled upon this thread I had to Google the meaning of Nationalist and have no predispositions for or against the term White Nationalist nor do I wish to label anyone as one. If you take the actual meaning of the term which  by the way is what "everyone else uses". Then you are describing a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other races. It's not my place to say this is a bad thing or not, all I can say is that the beliefs you are claiming to support and what a White Nationalist is are not the same thing. It's irrelevant what "you think" the term means because I just told you what the term means several times and that's what "everyone else" knows the term to mean also. If you want to go around calling yourself a White Nationalist and claiming it means something totally different then the actual definition, then that's your prerogative.

 I mean you can even google White Nationalism - "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation."

This is almost identical to the literal definition I mentioned several times previously, I have no idea what definition of the word you are referring to that does not involve race or exclusion of other races but these are the definitions that people not involved in the discussion will find, thus what you will be labelled as. No one else is labeling you as anything, your are labeling yourself! How can you not see this!?

I accept that some individuals may think I'm labeling myself, but it's quite the opposite. I don't accept that label, so it is not me.

I define white nationalism differently, is all. I define it as the original form of the word. I don't need to say 'white' nationalist, but I'm afraid without the colour designation, we might get lost in all the other opposite nationalists using the term correctly. People can be lazy and rely on dictionary definitions, but not one person, outside of canned definitions and narratives has been able to explain why white nationalism is different than black nationalism, except it was co-opted by dinks and liars, who shouldn't count. Same amount of letters, same word, different colour. If you wish those same dinks and liars to define you, that's is certainly your prerogative. However, that doesn't work with, or for, me.

I simply see this discussion as a way to shake people up and say we don't need to listen to this crap. We don't need to be defined by racist phrases and guilt because of our colour or when some uneducated cretin wishes to try perpetuate the falsehood. We can change that, but some would rather shoot the messenger than collectively looking at a way to solve it. It would also take work and time, something many won't want to do.

I don't care how anyone defines me, so long as it's honest. But if you attack me and call me something I'm not, try to put words in my mouth, intersperse your comments with innuendo, instead of reasoned discussion, you get it all back.

To the discussion.

So, the phrase white nationalist was been co-opted by supremacists and the ignorant left and turned to crap. Do we leave it? Do we accept this wrong label that defines us until it becomes cemented in literature and usage against us? Remember the old, "When they came for them, it wasn't me, so I said nothing......"

Or do we refuse to concede to their hypocritical usage. We've become afraid of a challenge and would rather let them get away with it and, well, we'll just use another word like, oh I don't know, patriot. What is your argument going to be when that word becomes a pejorative by the quacks. Look for another word to define yourself, or tell them to frig off and quit playing with the language.

Or do we forcefully take it back with education and stamina?  To where the original meaning falls in line with everyone else in civilization and not as a pejorative against a single group.

I will use the term, when challenged, I'll try educate. I don't accept the moniker as modern language. That is really, quite simply, my whole point. The current use of the term is wrong and needs to be taken back to it's original phraseology, before it was stolen for an agenda.

I think that should, as a 'white' nationalist, make my stance pretty clear.

Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 25,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2019, 17:55:21 »
See, the problem here is that you still subscribe to the notion that "white nationalism" is a bad thing, as defined by ne'er do wells and supremacists and wiki, but any other kind of nationalism is OK. Now why would that be? You like that label? If it's not nipped in the bud, it will become the norm and everyone will wear the label.

I'm saying I won't accept one meaning for Caucasians and another for everyone else when the same wordings are used.

I'm fighting this and don't accept that we have to sit back and accept this.

In my mind, if you aren't willing to stand and say, "you are not hanging that label on me. It's wrong and racist" you are part of the perpetuation of this grievance.

I will not go quietly into this goodnight. I will not let someone label me or tell me what I have to believe.

I am not enamored with the status quo.

You guys can continue to think it's OK, and that I'm wrong, but I won't. It is wrong and I'm doing something about it in my own way. At least I'm trying, instead of bitching people out as racist and walking away. Maybe I'm just have a Don Quixote moment, who knows, but I feel strongly on this and believe it's a wrong that needs to righted.

Nationalist generally refers to someone who is strongly for their interests for their nation at the expense of nations. It is by definition a non-cooperative, Ayn Rand kind of world view of might=right. Personally I think that's self defeating, and a crab bucket kind of way to think of things.  You can see that kind of thinking in Trump, where his 'America first' trade policies includes putting huge tariffs on imports to somehow protect American jobs, while he's actually causing major damage to American industry by making them uncompetitive exporters. He's combining nationalism with a staggering ignorance of economics (which is pretty embarassing for his alma mater where his dad bought his degree from).

Patriotism is more appropriate for someone who is proud of their country, and who will defend the interests of the nation. That can mean working with other nations so that everyone gets a piece of the pie, but doesn't have the same sense of 'we're better than everyone'.

So a white nationalist, by definition, is someone who's world view divides people by race (vice geography) and will put forward their interests at the expense of other people. That is exactly what white supremacy is about. And that's if you say you are a white nationalist people take that to mean you are a nazi.

You are free to disagree, but doesn't change the fact that as soon as you combine white with nationalism, pride, or anything similar, you are using the language of white supremacists, and people will view you as such. If that's not your worldview, then you will want to reconsider your words. It's your responsibility as the person explaining themselves to communicate clearly, and not for the people listening to read your mind, and extrapolate a different meaning from what has been commonly understood across the globe for over a century.  That's not groupthink, that's how language works.

I don't buy into some kind of 'white guilt' either, but I do recognize that as a white guy growing up in Canada, working hard was enough. I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten a number of jobs or had a number of other opportunities that I did if I was black, muslim, etc.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,599
    • Army.ca
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2019, 18:18:13 »
Nationalist generally refers to someone who is strongly for their interests for their nation at the expense of nations. It is by definition a non-cooperative, Ayn Rand kind of world view of might=right. Personally I think that's self defeating, and a crab bucket kind of way to think of things.  You can see that kind of thinking in Trump, where his 'America first' trade policies includes putting huge tariffs on imports to somehow protect American jobs, while he's actually causing major damage to American industry by making them uncompetitive exporters. He's combining nationalism with a staggering ignorance of economics (which is pretty embarassing for his alma mater where his dad bought his degree from).

Patriotism is more appropriate for someone who is proud of their country, and who will defend the interests of the nation. That can mean working with other nations so that everyone gets a piece of the pie, but doesn't have the same sense of 'we're better than everyone'.

So a white nationalist, by definition, is someone who's world view divides people by race (vice geography) and will put forward their interests at the expense of other people. That is exactly what white supremacy is about. And that's if you say you are a white nationalist people take that to mean you are a nazi.

You are free to disagree, but doesn't change the fact that as soon as you combine white with nationalism, pride, or anything similar, you are using the language of white supremacists, and people will view you as such. If that's not your worldview, then you will want to reconsider your words. It's your responsibility as the person explaining themselves to communicate clearly, and not for the people listening to read your mind, and extrapolate a different meaning from what has been commonly understood across the globe for over a century.  That's not groupthink, that's how language works.

I don't buy into some kind of 'white guilt' either, but I do recognize that as a white guy growing up in Canada, working hard was enough. I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten a number of jobs or had a number of other opportunities that I did if I was black, muslim, etc.

So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.

Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?

The word nationalist existed long before it was co-opted by socialists, just because they used the word in a different context doesn't mean we have to ascribe to it. Nor does anyone else.

You can feel free to be counter-defined by it, but I won't.

Besides language evolves. What you consider good and proper now, might not be in five years. Bad now means good. ;)

It is groupthink.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2019, 18:31:37 »
Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,599
    • Army.ca
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2019, 18:49:42 »
Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.

No argument here from me.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 108,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,277
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2019, 19:30:48 »
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?
Optio

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2019, 19:34:52 »
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

Perhaps, for some, it's a backlash against being blamed for every perceived ill on the planet because they are white? To me people are like eggs, I don't care about the colour of the shell, rotten ones come in every colour.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 19:37:54 by Target Up »
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 108,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,277
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2019, 19:46:25 »
Perhaps, for some, it's a backlash against being blamed for every perceived ill on the planet because they are white? To me people are like eggs, I don't care about the colour of the shell, rotten ones come in every colour.

Again, what is it that elicits the pride? 

Using that guess that you have posited it seems like a reaction as opposed to something to be really proud of.
Optio

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2019, 20:00:44 »
Again, what is it that elicits the pride? 

Using that guess that you have posited it seems like a reaction as opposed to something to be really proud of.

Why? That explanation has been just fine for all the (insert adjective here) Pride movements as a reply to real or perceived mistreatment, why not for white pride? I am not particularly proud of being white, a coincidence  of genetics and geography, but neither should it be something to be ashamed of if it's beyond my control, no?
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 118,456
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,277
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2019, 20:01:46 »
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

What is it about language that elicits pride? I've found through travelling recently that this is more than just a Quebec thing, France and Quebec share a similar sense of pride in their language that seems odd to me. Also odd to a french girl from Switzerland who would always clarify when it came up with other travelers that even though her first language was French, she was not French (as in, from France).

I have to wonder if it is not a feeling of being on the defensive against society because of your *insert random identity here* that results in a sense of pride as a reaction to that force.

Was LGBTQ pride not born out of a feeling of being on the defensive against the rest of society because of their LGBTQ identity? Is that not still why the Pride parades continue to exist?

The fact that I am Canadian never seems to be at the forefront of my mind until someone from outside Canada starts attacking Canada which seems to rarely happen and thus I rarely feel a sense of Canadian pride. Being from Newfoundland I often felt more "pride" about that, probably because it felt like the rest of Canada looked down on Newfoundland for all of my life.


Is white nationalism on the rise? Seems so. Is it on the rise as a reaction to that perception/feeling of being on the defensive against the rest of society because you are white, and that feeling/perception is growing among white people? Seems plausible.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 213,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2019, 20:21:17 »
I accept that some individuals may think I'm labeling myself, but it's quite the opposite. I don't accept that label, so it is not me.

I define white nationalism differently, is all. I define it as the original form of the word. I don't need to say 'white' nationalist, but I'm afraid without the colour designation, we might get lost in all the other opposite nationalists using the term correctly. People can be lazy and rely on dictionary definitions, but not one person, outside of canned definitions and narratives has been able to explain why white nationalism is different than black nationalism, except it was co-opted by dinks and liars, who shouldn't count. Same amount of letters, same word, different colour. If you wish those same dinks and liars to define you, that's is certainly your prerogative. However, that doesn't work with, or for, me.

I simply see this discussion as a way to shake people up and say we don't need to listen to this crap. We don't need to be defined by racist phrases and guilt because of our colour or when some uneducated cretin wishes to try perpetuate the falsehood. We can change that, but some would rather shoot the messenger than collectively looking at a way to solve it. It would also take work and time, something many won't want to do.

I don't care how anyone defines me, so long as it's honest. But if you attack me and call me something I'm not, try to put words in my mouth, intersperse your comments with innuendo, instead of reasoned discussion, you get it all back.

To the discussion.

So, the phrase white nationalist was been co-opted by supremacists and the ignorant left and turned to crap. Do we leave it? Do we accept this wrong label that defines us until it becomes cemented in literature and usage against us? Remember the old, "When they came for them, it wasn't me, so I said nothing......"

Or do we refuse to concede to their hypocritical usage. We've become afraid of a challenge and would rather let them get away with it and, well, we'll just use another word like, oh I don't know, patriot. What is your argument going to be when that word becomes a pejorative by the quacks. Look for another word to define yourself, or tell them to frig off and quit playing with the language.

Or do we forcefully take it back with education and stamina?  To where the original meaning falls in line with everyone else in civilization and not as a pejorative against a single group.

I will use the term, when challenged, I'll try educate. I don't accept the moniker as modern language. That is really, quite simply, my whole point. The current use of the term is wrong and needs to be taken back to it's original phraseology, before it was stolen for an agenda.

I think that should, as a 'white' nationalist, make my stance pretty clear.

No, see this is where you continue to try to deceive people. Calling it an 'alt-definition', claiming it has been 'co-opted', first by white supremacists, and otherwise by 'ne'er-do-wells', 'liars', etc. You talk about 'originally phraseology' as if there were such a thing for 'white nationalism', but there isn't. You are being disingenuous about that, and now that definitions from the very same dictionary you earlier relied upon no longer suit your narrative, you're rejecting that too. You are trying to create your own definition out of thin air. That doesn't make it a real thing and it doesn't negate the common and actual meaning. You're trying to suggest and to lead others to believe that there has ever been some other definition. That is factually incorrect and you know it to be. It is dishonest.

"White nationalism" doesn't have some original meaning different from what is not in use. It has never meant what you're trying to make it mean. "White nationalist" has never meant "I happen to be white. And also, separately, coincidentally, and unconnected to my whiteness, I am a nationalist for the geopolitical entity whose borders I reside in". That's not a thing no matter how much you desperately want to make it. "White nationalism" has always meant 'whiteness' as the defining identity for a nation of people - nation being a word that has several nuanced meanings, and is not solely restricted tot he narrow usage you're trying to force as a constraint here. "White nationalism" has not been co-opted into the definition you don't like, because it never had another meaning. It's not an 'alt-definition', because it's not a newly introduced alternative to something else, older, and also legitimate. That something else doens't exist and never had.

What is happening here is that you are offended by what a term means and you're trying to change it, but quite simply that's your own fiction. You can say you don't 'accept' the moniker, but if you want to reject the English language as it is actually used, if you want to reject terms as they are actually defined and commonly understood purely because you don't like it, that's just you being petulant about it.

You cannot take "White nationalism", hive off the "nationalist" part of the term and pretend that the specific definition of that word on its own can suddenly apply to the whole thing and neutralize any uglier elements that adding the ethnic identity to the term means.

I am at least reassured that you identifying as a "white nationalist" is merely your own conceited don quixote moment, and not you actually saying you believe in the advancement of the white race at the expense of others. It's still singularly unimpressive, but at least is merely sad rather than frightening.

So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.

Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?

The word nationalist existed long before it was co-opted by socialists, just because they used the word in a different context doesn't mean we have to ascribe to it. Nor does anyone else.


I challenge you to find one person here who has said 'Black nationalism' is 'right', or 'good'. I do recall that earlier I myself stated quite clearly "There’s also a difference between group identities, and an exclusionary nationalism based on those identities. The latter is in my opinion morally wrong in all cases, whether it’s white nationalism in the west or similar but opposite manifestations in places like Zimbabwe." So while I did not specifically say 'Black nationalism', I made it damned clear that any ethno-nationalism is bad in my books. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say otherwise.  It seems pretty universally agreed that advancement of one race over and above, and contrary to the interests of another, is a bad thing. So what you have done is tried to get us to argue a red herring.

Your continued unwillingness to grasp that 'Nationalism' and 'White nationalism' are very different and distinct from each other, and that the latter has its own definite, widely used, and well understood meaning is not doing you any favours.

Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.

Very easily. What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity. One can easily be a patriot but not an outright nationalist. Many of us are, and we faithfully fulfill our oaths and duties to our country in the course of our service. One needn't be actively against other groups to generally believe in promoting the interests of ones own. So long as we are faithful to our oath/affirmation, follow the law, and carry out our duties as lawfully ordered, how can we be 'taking the queen's shilling under false pretences'? When Canada says "Go, do", as long as it's not manifestly illegal, we go and we do. Frankly it's not to you to say that we aren't faithfully serving our country merely because of how you interpret a word.

Now, of course, to firmly grip this and keep it in context: we are talking about "white nationalism[/i]", not just "nationalism". That has been the term in play. White nationalism bases its national identity - a nation as a group of like people - based purely on whiteness. Where a national identity is based on skin colour, that's a big damned problem. It's not nationalism where your nation is based on being Canadian, or whatever country or geo-political entity. It's a nation made of one group of people segregated on racial lines to the detriment of others. In practice it is difficult to find much divide between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy"; the latter is just a still-bolder manifestation of the same crap just even further on the spectrum.

A "White nationalist" is not merely a "nationalist" who happens to be "white" any more than a "Cheeseburger" is a burger made entirely of cheese.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 20:28:33 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2019, 20:28:22 »
No, see this is where you continue to try to deceive people. Calling it an 'alt-definition', claiming it has been 'co-opted', first by white supremacists, and otherwise by 'ne'er-do-wells', 'liars', etc. You talk about 'originally phraseology' as if there were such a thing for 'white nationalism', but there isn't. You are being disingenuous about that, and now that definitions from the very same dictionary you earlier relied upon no longer suit your narrative, you're rejecting that too. You are trying to create your own definition out of thin air. That doesn't make it a real thing and it doesn't negate the common and actual meaning. You're trying to suggest and to lead others to believe that there has ever been some other definition. That is factually incorrect and you know it to be. It is dishonest.

"White nationalism" doesn't have some original meaning different from what is not in use. It has never meant what you're trying to make it mean. "White nationalist" has never meant "I happen to be white. And also, separately, coincidentally, and unconnected to my whiteness, I am a nationalist for the geopolitical entity whose borders I reside in". That's not a thing no matter how much you desperately want to make it. "White nationalism" has always meant 'whiteness' as the defining identity for a nation of people - nation being a word that has several nuanced meanings, and is not solely restricted tot he narrow usage you're trying to force as a constraint here. "White nationalism" has not been co-opted into the definition you don't like, because it never had another meaning. It's not an 'alt-definition', because it's not a newly introduced alternative to something else, older, and also legitimate. That something else doens't exist and never had.

What is happening here is that you are offended by what a term means and you're trying to change it, but quite simply that's your own fiction. You can say you don't 'accept' the moniker, but if you want to reject the English language as it is actually used, if you want to reject terms as they are actually defined and commonly understood purely because you don't like it, that's just you being petulant about it.

You cannot take "White nationalism", hive off the "nationalist" part of the term and pretend that the specific definition of that word on its own can suddenly apply to the whole thing and neutralize any uglier elements that adding the ethnic identity to the term means.

I am at least reassured that you identifying as a "white nationalist" is merely your own conceited don quixote moment, and not you actually saying you believe in the advancement of the white race at the expense of others. It's still singularly unimpressive, but at least is merely sad rather than frightening.

I challenge you to find one person here who has said 'Black nationalism' is 'right', or 'good'. I do recall that earlier I myself stated quite clearly "There’s also a difference between group identities, and an exclusionary nationalism based on those identities. The latter is in my opinion morally wrong in all cases, whether it’s white nationalism in the west or similar but opposite manifestations in places like Zimbabwe." So while I did not specifically say 'Black nationalism', I made it damned clear that any ethno-nationalism is bad in my books. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say otherwise.  It seems pretty universally agreed that advancement of one race over and above, and contrary to the interests of another, is a bad thing. So what you have done is tried to get us to argue a red herring.

Your continued unwillingness to grasp that 'Nationalism' and 'White nationalism' are very different and distinct from each other, and that the latter has its own definite, widely used, and well understood meaning is not doing you any favours.

Very easily. What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively [/i]against[/i] the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity. One can easily be a patriot but not an outright nationalist. Many of us are, and we faithfully fulfill our oaths and duties to our country in the course of our service. One needn't be actively against other groups to generally believe in promoting the interests of ones own. So long as we are faithful to our oath/affirmation, follow the law, and carry out our duties as lawfully ordered, how can we be 'taking the queen's shilling under false pretences'? When Canada says "Go, do", as long as it's not manifestly illegal, we go and we do. Frankly it's not to you to say that we aren't faithfully serving our country merely because of how you interpret a word.

Now, of course, to firmly grip this and keep it in context: we are talking about "white nationalism[/i]", not just "nationalism". That has been the term in play. White nationalism bases its national identity - a nation as a group of like people - based purely on whiteness. Where a national identity is based on skin colour, that's a big damned problem. It's not nationalism where your nation is based on being Canadian, or whatever country or geo-political entity. It's a nation made of one group of people segregated on racial lines to the detriment of others. In practice it is difficult to find much divide between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy"; the latter is just a still-bolder manifestation of the same crap just even further on the spectrum.

A "White nationalist" is not merely a "nationalist" who happens to be "white" any more than a "Cheeseburger" is a burger made entirely of cheese.

Okay, just quickly; When you "go do", you are doing it to the detriment of another country, or just lately groups within it. You are going to their house and breaking their stuff. Does that not fit your parameter?
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 213,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2019, 20:39:30 »
Okay, just quickly; When you "go do", you are doing it to the detriment of another country, or just lately groups within it. You are going to their house and breaking their stuff. Does that not fit your parameter?

Yup, totally fair question. If we were prone to being instigators in wars of aggression, I wouldn't have joined up or stayed in. I'm satisfied from my years of watching our country and her military engagements that if we're going overseas, yes it serves our national interest in some direct or indirect way, but we're also doing so in accordance with international law and generally a pretty good international consensus. We aren't deploying troops to Afghanistan, or Libya, or Kosovo, or Mali, or Iraq, or Ukraine because "Eat crap, we're Canada!" and we're taking something we want, we're doing so because generally there are pressing national or international security interests, or a consensus based humanitarian imperative for same.

With that said, absolutely we as an electorate always have to be very attentive to what the government wants to do with our military. If they day came where I no longer could feel that I was going to be used responsibly and ethically by our government, then I would be releasing ASAP. We have a pretty good rule of law and a pretty good system of political checks and balances (measured against all the others, at least), so I'm not worried about it as a likely problem. As a small country and a middle power at best, we simply don't have the clout to start much in the way of stupid fights, so at least there's that.

On your original point though, do you think I've made a fair argument for 'patriotism' versus 'nationalism' as it pertains to the legitimacy of our service? I'm not trying to be snippy, it's an honest question because what you've brought up is an important thing and worth discussing.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2019, 20:49:06 »
Yup, totally fair question. If we were prone to being instigators in wars of aggression, I wouldn't have joined up or stayed in. I'm satisfied from my years of watching our country and her military engagements that if we're going overseas, yes it serves our national interest in some direct or indirect way, but we're also doing so in accordance with international law and generally a pretty good international consensus. We aren't deploying troops to Afghanistan, or Libya, or Kosovo, or Mali, or Iraq, or Ukraine because "Eat crap, we're Canada!" and we're taking something we want, we're doing so because generally there are pressing national or international security interests, or a consensus based humanitarian imperative for same.

With that said, absolutely we as an electorate always have to be very attentive to what the government wants to do with our military. If they day came where I no longer could feel that I was going to be used responsibly and ethically by our government, then I would be releasing ASAP. We have a pretty good rule of law and a pretty good system of political checks and balances (measured against all the others, at least), so I'm not worried about it as a likely problem. As a small country and a middle power at best, we simply don't have the clout to start much in the way of stupid fights, so at least there's that.

On your original point though, do you think I've made a fair argument for 'patriotism' versus 'nationalism' as it pertains to the legitimacy of our service? I'm not trying to be snippy, it's an honest question because what you've brought up is an important thing and worth discussing.

And I'm not deliberately trying to inflame anything either. The definition of nationalism, given by you was "What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity." By that definition, to my eye at least, and I freely admit to being poorly educated, Loading up our stuff, going somewhere else and killing people and blowing up their things, fits nicely within that parameter. Patriotism is defined as love of country, to me, going to other places and doing something about it is nationalism. I could be wrong though, as said I'm rather poorly educated, and at the end of the day they're just words that only have the power we choose to give them.

   Anyway, I've taken this way off track, sorry.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 20:51:47 by Target Up »
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 239,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,529
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2019, 20:59:10 »
Is it on the rise as a reaction to that perception/feeling of being on the defensive against the rest of society because you are white, and that feeling/perception is growing among white people? Seems plausible.

'Reactionary' is the good ol' political science term for these types of people who want to see a return to their perception of the status quo or 'good old days'. Yet another useful word provided to us by the French Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 213,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2019, 21:04:15 »
And I'm not deliberately trying to inflame anything either. The definition of nationalism, given by you was "What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity." By that definition, to my eye at least, and I freely admit to being poorly educated, Loading up our stuff, going somewhere else and killing people and blowing up their things, fits nicely within that parameter. Patriotism is defined as love of country, to me, going to other places and doing something about it is nationalism. I could be wrong though, as said I'm rather poorly educated, and at the end of the day they're just words that only have the power we choose to give them.

   Anyway, I've taken this way off track, sorry.

Nah, it's all good, this is an interesting and worthwhile sidetrack.

Um, so I guess part of what makes it work for me is that *as individuals*, we trust, love, and believe in our country and our system enough to have faith that we won't be used inappropriately. That if we're gonna go kill people and break their crap, it's for an ethically defensible reason. Stopping a genocide, defending an ally, helping to protect a minority against a violent majority, stuff like that. Hell, a few of our greatest moral failings have arguably been when we *should* have used armed force to stop things and failed to despite being in a position to. But generally Canada gets involved in the justified fights, the ones that are 'right' to take up. We don't always get it right and history will not be kind to every single thing we've done. But we've all joined first and foremost to protect Canada, and because we are at Canada's disposal, are sent to do other things too. There has to be a certain amount of trust by the soldiers in the highest levels of military and political leadership, or it just doesn't work.

The more into details we get the messier it becomes, but offhand I can't think of a case where we went in 'against' someone and weren't also doing it 'for' something that was justified in its own right. Even in Kandahar when our guys were kicking doors and shooting faces, it was in support of an elected national government there, as part of an international NATO mission there with the consent of that government, and acting under the authority of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council that most countries have signed on to allowing to make those calls.

One could argue a bit more cynically that soldiers who love their country can serve and can obey orders even if they're unsure about and maybe questioning the bigger picture- as long as their do their duty, their service is tough to question. Though I don't like that line of thinking because it gets closer to troops being amoral automatons. I like that we aren't.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2019, 21:10:46 »
I
Nah, it's all good, this is an interesting and worthwhile sidetrack.

Um, so I guess part of what makes it work for me is that *as individuals*, we trust, love, and believe in our country and our system enough to have faith that we won't be used inappropriately. That if we're gonna go kill people and break their crap, it's for an ethically defensible reason. Stopping a genocide, defending an ally, helping to protect a minority against a violent majority, stuff like that. Hell, a few of our greatest moral failings have arguably been when we *should* have used armed force to stop things and failed to despite being in a position to. But generally Canada gets involved in the justified fights, the ones that are 'right' to take up. We don't always get it right and history will not be kind to every single thing we've done. But we've all joined first and foremost to protect Canada, and because we are at Canada's disposal, are sent to do other things too. There has to be a certain amount of trust by the soldiers in the highest levels of military and political leadership, or it just doesn't work.

The more into details we get the messier it becomes, but offhand I can't think of a case where we went in 'against' someone and weren't also doing it 'for' something that was justified in its own right. Even in Kandahar when our guys were kicking doors and shooting faces, it was in support of an elected national government there, as part of an international NATO mission there with the consent of that government, and acting under the authority of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council that most countries have signed on to allowing to make those calls.

One could argue a bit more cynically that soldiers who love their country can serve and can obey orders even if they're unsure about and maybe questioning the bigger picture- as long as their do their duty, their service is tough to question. Though I don't like that line of thinking because it gets closer to troops being amoral automatons. I like that we aren't.

I think you and I are in violent agreement here...however.  If you go to far off exotic locales, meet interesting people from diverse cultures, and kill them, you are acting in your country's best interest, and to the detriment of theirs. That's what we did to Germany, twice, and there was no ambiguous motivation. It was to destroy evil before evil came to destroy us.  That's why home field advantage in war sucks.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 21:38:57 by Target Up »
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,599
    • Army.ca
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2019, 21:11:22 »
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

Fair question. I dont really want to use white. I tried to explain that saying nationalist without colour kinda makes the saying useless, given the polar opposite connotation as to which colour is being disussed. If everyone could stick to pride or nationalist without unnecessary colour or races, I'd be happy as crap.
We discuss the colours here because it is the colour designation that is at the heart of the disagreement. Nationalism isnt bad unless its white. Pride isn't bad, unless its white. Privilege is no problem for anyone, unless its white.

The colour is the crux.

I'm proud of who I am as a person. I'm white. Nothing I can do about it. Ergo I'm ambivalent unless you want to demean me for it. I'm also a proud (oops, almost said vanilla, mighta triggered someone 😊 ) plain old non-hyphenated Canadian.

Even so, if there's a bazzillion different 'prides', why can they exist in their state and be celebrated, but if you say white pride you're a racist?

Do you allow the divisive stereotypes to perpetuate or do you meet them head on and stop it.

I've never promised anyone a smooth journey, quite the opposite. I see stupidity and call it out, if the status quo needs grounding, I dont stare at my navel and rub my toe in the dirt until the feeling passes. I'm not a crusader of any sort, nor am I employed, worried my boss might read me here. I was always like this. And, yes, Im proud of it.

If we could all just agree to call each other nationalist,  if conversing about it, I'd near beg for it. Most of us, here, dont know colour, religion, ethic makeup of most anyone else here.

So we converse here, agree, disagree and because we love our country and serve(d) we can consider ourselves nationalists. I think we can agree on that.

Now, if you find out I'm white, do I now become a supremacist in your eyes? I would hope not.

As I say, I would prefer no colour of nationalist be part of the equation. However, if it is going to be used as a sledgehammer by the ignorant, as a reason to demean a single race, I will wear the moniker. They can challenge me, I'll willingly discuss it, as here, and hope a seed takes hold somewhere. White nationalism, in its worst connotation was stolen and bastardized by a small, truly evil group. And yet people sit back and allow the demonization of a whole race for it. Contrary to a few, all I want is to bring out in the open and correct it.

If it can be put back in it's proper, historical perspective and ignore the made up hyperbole, the term white nationalism will lose all it's evil power. As the only racial outlier, now corrected, the colour will fall to disuse because, well, hell, we're all good nationalists now, there's no need to differentiate.

Really, that's all I got. Take it how you want. You guys go ahead and tear apart whatever you want, I dont think there's a single point of my stance that's not here. I'll look at it, but I doubt it'll lead to discussion of something not already here.

You can be part of the solution or part of the problem, from where I sit.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 25,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2019, 21:14:02 »
So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.

Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?


I don't think any nationalism is good, which is what I clearly said above, and why.  It's a 'f*** you, I'll get mine' approach to relations. It's bad at a personal level, and it's poison at a country level (especially in a globalised economy). I don't think black nationalism (or any kind of nationalism) is progress either, but I can at least understand the desire to have your own nation when you are living under a system that is institutionally racist.

But I'll put it really simply;

- White supremacists call themselves 'white nationalists'

-you are stating you are a white nationalist

-therefore, by the transitive property of equality, people take that to mean you are saying you are a white supremacist.

Brihard explained it already, but it's not something that's defined by '10k white supremacists'; that's the commonly understood meaning of the word is, and why that's the dictionary definition. Even if that's only in North America, that's hundreds of milions of people that will have that interpretation.

Using those words will continue to have that meaning until the generally accepted meaning changes. But swastikas were holy symbols for millennia, but now evoke a very strong association with the Nazis and all their evil deeds, so I wouldn't hold my breath for 'white nationalist' suddenly becoming exclusively understood as 'patriotic person who happens to be white'."

Not calling all the pundits and trolls that are hiding their hate behind thinly veiled euphemisms to try and stay mainstream is part of the problem. Being patriotic and proud of who you are are both fine, but expect to continue to get called out for being a nazi if you are going to keep arguing you are a white nationalist ("but it doesn't mean what you think").

I don't see any contradiction in not liking nationalism and being in the CAF.

Target up, that's a valid point, but I think maybe it's because you are interpreting 'nationalism' as a single event based thing, vice a general approach. A nationalists approaches interactions with other countries as a win or lose situation in everything; so extends to trade, politics, etc. A more globalised approach recognizes that cooperation is better, as we're all in this together (but may sometimes disagree, even up to the point of going to war). I guess an everyday example is that you can get in occasional punch ups without being a bully, whereas a 'nationalist' would steal your lunch money, keep you in line with threats, and occasionally beat you up. It's a consistent outlook that has a pattern of behaviour (as opposed to a single action looked at with no context).
 
For example, we've gone to war with Germany twice, and are now close allies. We can work together and do things were we both benefit, and are further ahead then if we tried to do it independently. We were also at war with the US that one time, but obviously it's not in our best interest to try and get ahead at the expense of our biggest trading partner and neighbour. Nationalism is short term, close minded thinking that relies on brute force and threats to stay ahead of 'them', while using fear and hate to unite 'us' in a common goal against 'them'. From that perspective, it's another method people use to manipulate and control others to do things they want and accumulate power, so no different in cause/effect than any other kind of extremism or cult.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 248,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,904
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2019, 21:24:08 »
Is it German Nazis or just Nazis? 
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 223,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,833
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2019, 21:25:38 »
For example, we've gone to war with Germany twice, and are now close allies.Because it's no longer in the national interest to do so. We can work together and do things were we both benefit, and are further ahead then if we tried to do it independently. We were also at war with the US that one time, but obviously it's not in our best interest to try and get ahead at the expense of our biggest trading partner and neighbour. Nationalism is short term, close minded thinking that relies on brute force and threats to stay ahead of 'them', while using fear and hate to unite 'us' in a common goal against 'them'.I don't recall seeing this in the definition provided. From that perspective, it's another method people use to manipulate and control others to do things they want and accumulate power, so no different in cause/effect than any other kind of extremism or cult.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats